Nixie!

Children's Names

2007-04-11T13:45:00.000+12:00

Someone was asking me the other night about children's names (i.e. favoured and detested) and I discovered that for once I was lacking in an immediate response. Extremely bored after a day of data entry & filing, and faced with a long traffic filled journey home, I spent some time pondering and ended up with the following list. The Russian names I've liked since 4th form (nd after all the kids can always Anglicize them) and after realizing how many of my close circle of friends happen to have names that I already liked I decided that it seemed unfair for Sri to be the only one excluded. So there you go Sri, if we stay mates for another 8 years I may name one of the little tykes after you.

Katja / Katya Anastacia
Daniel Connor
Jamie Sridat
Ben Mikhail/Michael
Leilani Aroha (now there's a love child hippie name if ever I saw one!)

Ah...ironic pop

2007-03-25T11:51:00.000+12:00

ROCK STAR SUPERNOVA LYRICS

"Be Yourself (And 5 Other Cliches)"

Be yourself
and not somebody else
it might take some, a little effort
and maybe just a little help
but you can figure it out
if not
just do what everbody else does....

Oh, keep it on the level (if that's what I'm supposed to do)
keep on the level (if that's what they told me to)
I keep on getting in trouble
if I try to take this side of the road

So here's your hey hey hey (hey!), here's you ho ho ho (ho!)
I don't know where else to go
There's a really fine line between what's yours and what's mine
it's a line that I don't want to toe...
I'm sick of being haunted by every cliche that I know

Keep it real
whatever that means
even if your so young you've never seen a limousine
your gonna one day
just remember
never get in
and don't give up
cuz you know people are gonna care
if you just stop trying
and accept every dare
and if you can't seem to make it
maybe, maybe you should just try failure

Oh, keep it on the level (if that's what I'm supposed to do)
Oh, keep on the level (if that's the thing they told me to)
I keep on getting in trouble
if I try to take this side of the road

So here's your hey hey hey (hey!), here's you ho ho ho (ho!)
I don't know where else to go
There's a really fine line between what's yours and what's mine
it's a line that I don't want to toe...you know
I'm sick of being haunted by every cliche that I know

Oh oh oh oh oh, oh oh
oh oh oh oh oh, oh oh
...oh oh oh oh, oh aaaah!

Here's your hey hey hey (hey!), here's you ho ho ho (ho!)
I don't know where else to go
There's a really fine line between what's yours and what's mine
it's a line that I don't want to toe...you know

So here's your hey hey hey (hey!), here's you ho ho ho (ho!)
I don't know where else to go
There's a really fine line between what's yours and what's mine
it's a line that I don't want to toe...you know
I'm sick of being haunted by every cliche that I know
Oh oh...

2007-03-18T23:07:00.000+12:00

Jane Siberry
It Can't Rain All the Time

[SPOKEN:]
We walked the narrow path,
beneath the smoking skies.
Sometimes you can barely tell the difference
between darkness and light.
Do you have faith in what we believe?
The truest test is when we cannot,
when we cannot see.

[SUNG:]
I hear pounding feet in the,
in the streets below, and the,
and the women crying and the,
and the children know that there,
that there's something wrong,
and it's hard to belive that love will prevail.

Oh it won't rain all the time.
The sky won't fall forever.
And though the night seems long,
your tears won't fall forever.

Oh, when I'm lonely,
I lie awake at night and I wish you were here.
I miss you.
Can you tell me
is there something more to belive in?
Or is this all there is?

In the pounding feet, in the,
In the streets below, and the,
And the window breaks and,
And a woman falls, there's,
There's something wrong, it's,
It's so hard to belive that love will prevail.

Oh it won't rain all the time.
The sky won't fall forever.
And though the night seems long,
your tears won't fall, your tears won't fall, your tears won't fall
forever.

Last night I had a dream.
You came into my room,
you took me into your arms.
Whispering and kissing me,
and telling me to still belive.
But then the emptiness of a burning sea
against which we see
our darkest of sadness.

Until I felt safe and warm.
I fell asleep in your arms.
When I awoke I cried again for you were gone.
Oh, can you hear me?

It won't rain all the time.
The sky won't fall forever.
And though the night seems long,
your tears won't fall forever.
It won't rain all the time
The sky won't fall forever.
And though the night seems long,
your tears won't fall, your tears won't fall,
your tears won't fall forever.

2007-03-09T14:59:00.000+13:00

Pluralities, a poem by Eugenie A. Nida

We'll begin with a box, and the plural is boxes;
But the plural of ox should be oxen, not oxes.
Then one fowl is goose, but two are called geese;
Yet the plural of moose should never be meese.

You may find a lone mouse or a whole lot of mice,
But the plural of house is houses, not hice.
If the plural of man is always called men,
Why shouldn't the plural of pan be called pen?

Cows in the plural may be cows or kine,
But the plural of vow is vows, not vine.
And I speak of a foot and you show me your feet,
But I give you a boot, would a pair be called beet?

If one is a tooth and a whole set are teeth,
Why shouldn't the plural of booth be called beeth?
If the singular is this and the plural is these,
Should the plural of kiss be nicknamed kese?

Then one may be that and three may be those,
Yet the plural of hat will never be hose.
We speak of a brother and also of brethren,
But we say mother, we never say methren.

The masculine pronouns are he, his and him,
But imagine the feminine she, shis, and shim.
So our English, I think you all will agree,
Is the trickiest language you ever did see.

Four Yorkshiremen Sketch - Monty Python

2007-03-08T12:21:00.000+13:00

Four well-dressed men sitting together at a vacation resort.

Michael Palin: Ahh.. Very passable, this, very passable.

Graham Chapman: Nothing like a good glass of Chateau de Chassilier wine, ay Gessiah?

Terry Gilliam: You're right there Obediah.

Eric Idle: Who'd a thought thirty years ago we'd all be sittin' here drinking Chateau de Chassilier wine?

MP: Aye. In them days, we'd a' been glad to have the price of a cup o' tea.

GC: A cup ' COLD tea.

EI: Without milk or sugar.

TG: OR tea!

MP: In a filthy, cracked cup.

EI: We never used to have a cup. We used to have to drink out of a rolled up newspaper.

GC: The best WE could manage was to suck on a piece of damp cloth.

TG: But you know, we were happy in those days, though we were poor.

MP: Aye. BECAUSE we were poor. My old Dad used to say to me, "Money doesn't buy you happiness."

EI: 'E was right. I was happier then and I had NOTHIN'. We used to live in this tiiiny old house, with greaaaaat big holes in the roof.

GC: House? You were lucky to have a HOUSE! We used to live in one room, all hundred and twenty-six of us, no furniture. Half the floor was missing; we were all huddled together in one corner for fear of FALLING!

TG: You were lucky to have a ROOM! *We* used to have to live in a corridor!

MP: Ohhhh we used to DREAM of livin' in a corridor! Woulda' been a palace to us. We used to live in an old water tank on a rubbish tip. We got woken up every morning by having a load of rotting fish dumped all over us! House!? Hmph.

EI: Well when I say "house" it was only a hole in the ground covered by a piece of tarpolin, but it was a house to US.

GC: We were evicted from *our* hole in the ground; we had to go and live in a lake!

TG: You were lucky to have a LAKE! There were a hundred and sixty of us living in a small
shoebox in the middle of the road.

MP: Cardboard box?

TG: Aye.

MP: You were lucky. We lived for three months in a brown paper bag in a septic tank. We used to have to get up at six o'clock in the morning, clean the bag, eat a crust of stale bread, go to work down mill for fourteen hours a day week in-week out. When we got home, out Dad would thrash us to sleep with his belt!

GC: Luxury. We used to have to get out of the lake at three o'clock in the morning, clean the lake, eat a handful of hot gravel, go to work at the mill every day for tuppence a month, come home, and Dad would beat us around the head and neck with a broken bottle, if we were LUCKY!

TG: Well we had it tough. We used to have to get up out of the shoebox at twelve o'clock at night, and LICK the road clean with our tongues. We had half a handful of freezing cold gravel, worked twenty-four hours a day at the mill for fourpence every six years, and when we got home, our Dad would slice us in two with a bread knife.

EI: Right. I had to get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night, half an hour before I went to bed, (pause for laughter), eat a lump of cold poison, work twenty-nine hours a day down mill, and pay mill owner for permission to come to work, and when we got home, our Dad would kill us, and dance about on our graves singing "Hallelujah."

MP: But you try and tell the young people today that... and they won't believe ya'.

ALL: Nope, nope..

Marshall v. Burger King

2007-03-04T12:01:00.000+13:00

The Supreme Court of the State of Illinois last year ruled against Burger King for inadequate protection of its diners in this case. A patron went to her car in the carpark, managed to reverse into a streetlight, then get her foot stuck on the accelerator going forward, struck a kerb, became airborne.....ultimately, the car flew through the air, crashed through BK's wall and crushed a diner to death. You would think the family would sue the driver but why go after the perp. when the corporation has so much more money.... They successfully sued BK instead as the courts found the dining establishment to have neglected to provide adequate protection for its diners.
Guess they'll have to start hiring psychics to keep them informed of upcoming weird and freaky phenonmenon.

How to make your own office...

2007-03-02T15:39:00.000+13:00

"Hell. Too Good For Some Evil Bastards".

2007-03-01T11:08:00.000+13:00

Pizza joint censured for George W Bush

Friday, 23 February 2007

A complaint about a Hell Pizza billboard featuring a picture of United States President George W Bush has been partly upheld.
But the Advertising Standards Complaints Board did not find the picture or issues raised by the advertisement offensive, it was the term "evil bastards" that earned their censure.
Hell Pizza's advertising agency, Cinderella Ltd, mounted a spirited defence to the complaints board, even drawing on New Zealand author Barry Crump's book Bastards I Have Met.
The billboard that raised the ire of complainants featured a picture of Mr Bush, and the words "Hell. Too Good For Some Evil Bastards".
One complainant sighted the advertisement on a large billboard on State Highway 1 in Hamilton on November 3, 2006, and complained: "I object to the use of this language in such public sight where people might (a) take offence, and (b) have to explain the advert to children."
A second complainant said in part: "... Mr Bush is a GOD-fearing upright man who (I would say) will never be seen in Hell. It is a terrible and vicious smear campaign against a person who is openly a Christian."
Two other complainants expressed similar views.
The board chairman ruled that under the Code of Ethics, the following provisions were relevant:
Basic Principle 4: All advertisements should be prepared with a due sense of social responsibility to consumers and to society; and
Rule 5: Offensiveness – Advertisements should not contain anything which in light of generally prevailing community standards is likely to cause serious or widespread offence taking into account the contest, medium, audience and product (including services).
Cinderella told the board the billboard was erected to capitalise on the growing sense of outrage that was building around the invasion of Iraq and the role George Bush had played.
"We believe, and given the even greater opposition to the war in Iraq and George Bush's plummeting popularity among voters in the US, that the billboard was not only socially responsible, but incredibly prescient given events that have unfolded subsequently," the agency said.
It also noted that "much to our chagrin, the billboard company acted unilaterally (much like George Bush in fact) and removed the billboard as soon as it received complaints".
Regarding the "bastard" complaints, Cinderella said use of the term was widespread in New Zealand and could sometimes even be a compliment.
"We would point the board to the seminal work. . . Bastards I Have Met was a wide-ranging almost academic study of the different types of bastard that one could encounter throughout New Zealand.
"Of course George Bush had not yet come to prominence when Crump was writing, but had he been in office at the time, and if Barry had met him, I feel sure he would have qualified for his own chapter, headed 'Evil Bastard'.
"As it stands, George W could certainly fit within the genus of bastard identified as a `Bad bastard' (bastardus skullduggerus), or arguably for a subgroup of this particular type of bastard – the `real bad bastard' – although that is not for us to say," the agency said.
The board agreed unanimously that the phrase "evil bastards" was offensive when displayed in the community on a billboard, where it was visible to all members of the public, including children.
Accordingly it had not been prepared and displayed with a due sense of social responsibility and would be likely to cause serious offence.
However the other issues raised, though offensive to the complainants, did not meet the threshold to cause serious and widespread offence and the advertisement was not in breach of the Advertising Code in relation to those issues.

2007-02-28T20:59:00.001+13:00

Check out this cult I was invited to - 'the sports club'. Their site has toned down a little since I first saw it but it's still pretty freaky!

A Fishy Story...

2007-02-28T20:51:00.000+13:00

A guy who lives at Lake Conroe (50 miles north of Houston) saw a ball bouncing around kind of strange in the lake and went to investigate.It turned out to be a big catfish who had obviously tried to swallow a basketball which became stuck in its mouth!!The fish was totally exhausted from trying to dive, but unable to because the ball would always bring him back up to the surface. The guy tried numerous times to get the ball out, but was unsuccessful. He finally had his wife cut the ball in order to deflate it and release the hungry catfish. You probably wouldn't have believed this, if you hadn't seen the following pictures...

Artist: Pink Album: I'm Not Dead (2006)

2007-02-28T19:17:00.001+13:00

Who Knew

You took my hand
You showed me how
You promised me you'd be around
ah huh that's right

I took your words
And I believed
In everything you said to me
yeah huh that's right

CHORUS 1
If someone said three years from now
You'd be long gone
I'd stand up and punch them out
Cause they're all wrong
I know better
Cause you said forever
And ever
Who knew

Remember when we were such fools
And so convinced and just too cool
oh no no no

I wish I could touch you again
I wish I could still call you a friend
I'd give anything

CHORUS 2
When someone said count your blessings now
'Fore they're long gone
I guess I just didn't know how
I was all wrong
But they knew better
Still you said forever
And ever
Who Knew

Yeah yeah I'll keep you locked in my head
Until we meet again
Until we until we meet again
And I won't forget you my friend
What happened

CHORUS 3
If someone said three years from now
You'd be long gone
I'd stand up and punch them out
Cause they're all wrong and
That last kiss I'll cherish
Until we meet again
And time makes it harder
I wish I could remember
But I keep your memory
You visit me in my sleep
My darlin' who knew

My darlin' my darlin' who knew
My darlin' I miss you
My darlin' who knew

Who knew

New Draconian measures

2007-02-19T21:33:00.000+13:00

UK plans face-to-face interviews for passports
11:15AM Monday February 19, 2007
By Anthony Barnes

Passport officials have defended a new face-to-face interview system for passport applications in Britain, saying they will be an invaluable tool in fighting identity fraud.
Critics had said the checks, to be introduced for new applicants from April, would pose a "major threat" to individual liberty.

From 2009, the scheme will be extended to those renewing lost, stolen or expired passports.

There are 600,000 applicants for passports each year. The new rules require anyone requesting a passport for the first time to be interrogated about their personal details.
Opponents claim the policy is a back-door means to gather data for use with the Government's controversial identity card scheme.

But James Hall, the chief executive of the Identity and Passport Service, said it was a necessary "inconvenience" that would stop criminals stealing identities: "We all as citizens recognise we have to be inconvenienced by airport security but it's in our collective benefit." The questions were "not particularly intrusive", he said. "We may ask the applicant if they had a mortgage and if so with which company."

Campaign group NO2ID dismissed Mr Hall's justification as "tripe". The national co-ordinator, Phil Booth, said: "The only reason your private life is to be raked over by officials in this way is to collect and connect all official information about you for the National Identity Register.
The real message is clear: if you want to travel, you are a suspect."

- INDEPENDENT

What year do you belong in?

2007-02-05T18:36:00.000+13:00

You Belong in 1979

If you scored...1950 - 1959: You're fun loving, romantic, and more than a little innocent. See you at the drive in!

1960 - 1969: You are a free spirit with a huge heart. Love, peace, and happiness rule - oh, and drugs too.

1970 - 1979: Bold and brash, you take life by the horns. Whether you're partying or protesting, you give it your all!

1980 - 1989: Wild, over the top, and just a little bit cheesy. You're colorful at night - and successful during the day.

1990 - 1999: With you anything goes! You're grunge one day, ghetto fabulous the next. It's all good!

What year do you belong in?

Martin Luther King

2007-02-01T17:26:00.000+13:00

We could each be Dr. King
TV whitewashes King's legacy; work is not over

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., would have been 78 on Monday. He has been dead for 39 years, as long as he was alive. As his living memory fades, replaced by a feel-good "I have a dream" whitewash that ignores much of what he stood for and fought against, it's more important than ever to recapture the true history of Dr. King -- because much of what he fought against is resurfacing or still with us today.

King, the man, was, along with Mohandas Gandhi, one of the two most internationally revered symbols of nonviolence in the 20th century. He spent his too-brief adult life defying authority and convention, citing a higher moral authority, and gave hope and inspiration for the liberation of people of color on six continents. MLK Day, the holiday, has devolved into the Mississippi Burning of third Mondays. What started out as gratitude, that they made a movie about it, gradually becomes revulsion at how new generations of Euro-Americans mislearn the story.
King is not a legend because he believed in diversity trainings and civic ceremonies, or because he had a nice dream. He is remembered because he took serious risks and, as the Quakers say, spoke truth to power. King is also remembered because, among a number of brave and committed civil rights leaders and activists, he had a flair for self-promotion, a style that also appealed to white liberals, and the extraordinary social strength of the black Southern churches behind him. And because he died before he had a chance to be widely believed a relic or buffoon.
What little history TV will give us around King's holiday is at least as much about forgetting as about remembering, as much about self-congratulatory patriotism that King was American as self-examination that American racism made him necessary and that government, at every level, sought to destroy him. We hear "I have a dream"; we don't hear his powerful indictments of poverty, the Vietnam War, and the military-industrial complex. We see Bull Connor in Birmingham; we don't see arrests for fighting segregated housing in Chicago, or the years of beatings and busts before he won the Nobel Peace Prize. We don't hear about the mainstream American contempt at the time for King, even after that Peace Prize, nor the FBI harassment or his reputation among conservatives as a Commie dupe.

We don't see retrospectives on King's linkage of civil rights with Third World liberation. We forget that he died in Memphis lending support for a union (the garbage workers' strike), while organizing a multi-racial Poor Peoples' Campaign that demanded affordable housing and decent-paying jobs as basic civil rights transcending skin color. We forget that many of King's fellow leaders weren't nearly so polite. Cities were burning. We remember Selma instead.
And we forget that of those many dreams King had, only one -- equal access for non-whites -- is significantly realized today. A half-century after the Montgomery bus boycott catapulted a 26-year-old King into prominence, even that is only partly achieved.

Blacks are being systematically disenfranchised in our elections, and affirmative action and school desegregation are all but dead. Urban school districts across the country these days are as segregated and unequal as ever, and a conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court likely heralds a new era where employers and landlords can discriminate with near-impunity.
But an even bigger problem, as a generation dies off and the historical memory fades, is that Dr. King has become an icon, not a historical figure (distorted or otherwise). History requires context; icons don't. The racism King challenged four and five decades ago in Georgia and Alabama was also dominant throughout the country. Here in Seattle, few whites know that history: the housing and school segregation, laws barring Asians from owning land (overturned only in the '60s), the marches downtown from predominantly black Garfield High School, police harassment of both radical and mainstream black activists, the still-unsolved assassination of a local NAACP leader.

Every city in America has such histories. We don't know the stories of the people, many still with us, who led those struggles. And we rarely acknowledge that the overt racism of Montgomery 1955 is no longer so overt, but still part of America 2007. It shows up in our geography, in our jails, in our schools, in our voting booths, in our shelters and food banks, in our economy, and in the very earnest and extremely white activist groups that often carry the banner on these issues.

If our cities were serious about his legacy, Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. would run through downtowns, and there would be MLK Elementary Schools in the suburbs. Instead, in just about every big city in the U.S., school districts and city councils put King back in the ghetto, along with both the legions of people who worked with him and the many more who've taken up his work since.

Opponents of affirmative action and racial equality can claim King's mantle and "if he were alive today" approval only because in 2007, pop culture's MLK has no politics. And, for that matter, no faith. For white America, King's soft-focus image often reinforces white supremacism. "See? We're not so bad. We honor him now. Why don't those black people just get over it, anyway? We did."

All that is a lie. Dr. King's vision is today as urgent as ever. While Jim Crow and the cruelties of overt segregation are now largely unimaginable, much remains to be done. And for those who carry King's banner, the challenges of apathy and official hostility remain the same: the FBI and NSA spying on peace groups, listening to phone calls, monitoring e-mails, opening mail. An administration -- voted for by almost no African-Americans -- that reviles nonviolence and labels its critics as treasonous (rather than as communist dupes). And the moral outrage of Americans that made King's work so politically effective? We don't do that any more. We can torture thousands of mostly innocent Iraqis and Afghans, in plain sight, and nobody is held accountable. It'd take a whole lot more than Bull Connor's police dogs to make the news today.
The saddest loss in the modern narrative of Dr. King's career is the story of who he was: a man without wealth, without elected office, who managed as a single individual to change the world simply through the strength of his moral convictions. His power came from his faith, and his willingness to act on what he knew to be right. That story could inspire many millions to similar action -- if only it were told. We could each be Dr. King.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., nonviolent martyr to reconciliation and justice, has become a Hallmark Card, a warm, fuzzy, feel-good invocation of neighborliness, a file photo for sneakers or soda commercials, a reprieve for post-holiday shoppers, an excuse for a three-day weekend, a cardboard cutout used for photo ops by dissembling Cabinet members and ungrateful Supreme Court justices. Be sure to check out the Three-Day-Only White Sale at WalMart. Always a better price. Always.

Dr. King deserves better. We all do.

By Geov Parrish
Created Jan 13 2007 - 9:48am
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/node/4700/print

2007-01-25T16:49:00.000+13:00

Animals are people too
( clones are people two)

- sidewalk chalk

2007-01-21T20:01:00.000+13:00

Barack Obama takes first step to White House
Rediff International Affairs Bureau
January 17, 2007

He has spent only two years in national politics, but in a war-weary nation that could actually work in favour of United States Senator Barack Obama who, on Tuesday, made clear his intention to enter the Democratic Presidential race.

The actual war is far away. The Presidential election is slated for November 2008. Even the preparatory battle, the Democratic primaries, are 13 months away; Obama, while setting up a Presidential Exploratory Committee on Tuesday, said he would formally announce his intention to run for the US presidency -- the most powerful job on the planet -- on February 10.

The 45-year-old Obama's announcement ends weeks, even months, of speculation if the African-American Senator would actually take the plunge. His announcement also sent ripples of excitement within the Democratic Party, which is not short of Presidential hopefuls, given that the Republicans will be going into the election with their back to the wall over the Iraq war which has also been steadily sapping President George Bush's ratings.

Apart from Senator Joseph R Biden Jr of Delaware and Christopher J Dodd of Connecticut, other Democrats who are expected to run are former Senator John Edwards, former governor Tom Vilsack and Representative Dennis J Kucinich.

There are others lining up as well, notably Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, potentially Obama's biggest rival for occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. It is likely that Senator John Kerry, the party's nominee in 2004, will run this time round too.

There is no doubt that the 2008 vote will be fought on the course of the War on Terror, including the war in Iraq. Interestingly, Obama alone among the Democratic hopefuls has no record on the issue. When the US Senate voted whether or not to go to war in Iraq, he was a member of the Illinois legislature, where, of course, he stridently opposed the war.

This lack of record -- pointing to his lack of experience in national politics -- could go either way. The voters may plumb for someone who they perceive to be untainted by the ugly battles in Washington, DC, or they could back someone who has a longer record on issues that matter.
Obama's supporters don't believe his lack of experience would affect his chances. 'One thing I am convinced of, is that people want something new,' Obama said on Tuesday.

If he wins the final race, Obama will be the first African-American to occupy White House. He is currently the only one in the US Senate, and is only the third Senator since the American Civil War of 1861-1865.

Obama's meteoric rise -- in less than 10 years he rose from being a law professor to Illinois state senator to US Senator -- is already the stuff of media legend if not popular perception. On the stump he is said to be spectacular. In his video address, which he put up on his web site on Tuesday, Obama says, 'Running for the presidency is a profound decision, a decision no one should make on the basis of media hype or personal ambition alone.'

As the sole superpower currently in the throes of an unpopular war slowly goes into election mode, we will know if his star will continue to burn bright.

2007-01-21T19:59:00.000+13:00

A prisoner in a cell block
of their own creation
weighed down by own walls,
created boundaries
no stepping stones
turned in on self
dank, grey, feelingness
drifting, yet weighted down
in ones own vomit. Going nowhere
Lacking vision, they have no future because they have
no past; only endless present.

Freedom is a state of mind.

Looking the other way

2007-01-19T17:53:00.000+13:00

Below the belt: 1.10.07
Looking the other way

Last week the feminist community cheered one woman's unprecedented ascent to political power and rallied around another woman's release from prison. Both women, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Army Pvt. Suzanne Swift (as well as Swift's mother Sara Rich, who organized an international campaign to free her daughter), are leaders in today's feminist movement to end violence against women, and to end the abuse of women in and by the U.S. military -- in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and right here at home.

The Bush administration would do itself a favor (and do right by the rest of us) by heeding Pelosi, who is calling, along with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, for an end to the war in Iraq, and by tuning in to Swift's experience, which not only tells the story of thousands of women who have been abused and violated by their fellow soldiers and superiors, but also gives one example out of the tens of thousands of soldiers who have already returned from Iraq with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) -- a mental illness that will affect an estimated 15 to 29 percent of all returning soldiers.

We know that the current pro-war leadership couldn't care less about the countless Iraqi civilians who have been displaced, impoverished, separated from their families, injured and killed. But you'd think they might show some interest in the health and well-being of the women and men they send over there -- many for multiple tours of duty -- to fight their war.

Suzanne Swift is all too familiar with the consequences of "look the other way" leadership. She was deployed to Iraq a month after enlisting in 2004, and throughout her deployment reported being sexually harassed and assaulted by two sergeants. Swift's attempts to seek recourse were met with threats and disrespect. When she was sexually harassed by another commanding sergeant back in the U.S., after returning from Iraq, the perpetrator was merely transferred to another unit after she reported the incident, and Swift got immediate reprisals from the other soldiers in her own unit.

Eight months after returning from her first tour of duty, Swift was ordered to re-deploy to Iraq. Acutely traumatized by her experiences, Swift went AWOL (Absent Without Leave) and sought treatment for PTSD. She was arrested for going AWOL in June 2006, sentenced to 30 days confinement, and demoted in December. Swift was offered a "deal" that, according to Swift's mother, involved continuing her military service for 19 months, with no agreement that she wouldn't be sent back to Iraq, and signing a statement saying that she was not raped in Iraq. Swift rejected this offer and spent the next 30 days in military prison. She was released on January 3, 2007, greeted by many supporters and advocates.

Throughout her ordeal, Swift's mother, Sara Rich, campaigned with other activists, women's rights and peace organizations, and legislators seeking fair treatment for Suzanne. Swift is one of countless military women who got the cold shoulder from the Bush administration -- from its failure to protect, and prevent violence against, women serving their country, to its eagerness to recruit, arm and deploy men with criminal records for the sake of increasing troop numbers (more on these "moral waivers" later). Indeed, the administration has repeatedly shown that the safety and well-being of servicemembers are not a priority -- consider reports that soldiers have inadequate protection against biological and chemical warfare, along with Bush's proposals to cut funding for veterans' programs, and his willingness to send traumatized soldiers back to Iraq over and over again.

While "compassion" rolls so easily off conservative tongues, the Bush crowd seems to have some qualms when it comes to practicing what they preach.

Check out the numbers: Over 3,000 U.S. service personnel dead and counting, and more than 50,000 wounded. Over 650,000 soldiers have served in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001, and 170,000 have served multiple tours -- increasing their likelihood of returning with PTSD and other conditions requiring intense medical care.

Women in the military are at especially high risk for PTSD, facing the threat of sexual assault, rape, and harassment on top of the daily life-threats associated with deployment into a war zone. Twenty to forty soldiers are evacuated each month due to serious mental health problems. Military statistics show that a majority of the soldiers, perhaps as many as 80%, who have been diagnosed with mild symptoms of PTSD have been sent back to Iraq and Afghanistan again -- equipped with anti-depressant pills. How's that for compassion?

What's especially disturbing is that Bush is hell-bent on increasing the number of troops deployed to Iraq. Even Pentagon officials admit that certain standards would have to be lowered to accomplish this goal -- one policy official described it as a "trade-off between quality and quantity." Perhaps he was referring to disturbing trade-offs that have already been made: 17 percent of first-time recruits were accepted despite records of medical, moral or criminal issues such as drug problems and drunk driving arrests. These 13,000 recruits' records were "waived."

Of course, this strategy of "moral waivers" makes a lot of sense if you're just in the market for armed warm bodies, but if there's some other goal (let's say, maintaining a corps of healthy, competent service personnel with the highest potential to achieve military goals), it's problematic. Common sense says that someone with problems like chemical dependency, depression, and prior misdemeanor convictions will probably be less likely to handle combat stress well, and may be more likely to assault fellow soldiers or civilians. Combine that with the risk factors for PTSD that are inextricably tied to deployment -- like displacement from familiar surroundings and threatened loss of life -- and the chances for dysfunction are multiplied.

The result? A soldier whose waived entrance into military service may put himself and/or everyone else at added risk. Think of the soldier with a moral waiver who raped and murdered a 14-year-old Iraqi girl and killed her family. Think of the soldiers who assaulted Suzanne Swift.

But right now, all Bush can think of is more warm bodies with guns. Perhaps we should remind the Decider that presidents don't get moral waivers.

2007-01-18T20:42:00.000+13:00

You would not like the beach today.
You would not like me today.
We are both battered and unclean
from the storm.
I want to seek you out
so you can hold me
like you did once.
But you are too far
and we, too, are distant.

I need your touch, your security.
But that is like building
a castle in quick-sand.
So I am alone - again.
You would not like the beach today.
Beneath the thundering waves
the taniwha are weeping.
You would not like me today.

A good trick -
not sly
but always beats me,
the forgiving and trusting.
A bad trick
with a believer.

See,
there is an angel face
and there is an ice face.
The ice face is cruel and angry,
but his angel face
is soft and safe -
leans into me, and I am
mother and lover.

Race Against Time - World AIDS Day Speech - Remarks of Senator Barack Obama

2007-01-16T18:11:00.000+13:00

This dude is the only black senator in the US. He's been in 1 term and is being hailed as the potential first black Persident. He's a Democrate from Illanois.

Remarks of Senator Barack Obama: 2006 Global Summit on AIDS and the Church
Saddleback Church Campus
Lake Forest, California

I want to start by saying how blessed I feel to be a part of today and how grateful I am for your church and your pastor, my friend Rick Warren.

Ever since Rick and Kay visited Africa to see the pain and suffering wrought by AIDS, the Warrens and this church have proved each day that faith is not just something you have, it's something you do. Their decision to devote their time, their money, and their purpose-driven lives to the greatest health crisis in human history is not one that's always reported on the news or splashed across the front pages, but it is quietly becoming one of the most influential forces in the struggle against HIV and AIDS. The resources of governments may be vast, and the good works of philanthropists may be abundant, but we should never underestimate how powerful the passion of people of faith can be in eradicating this disease.

One of those passionate individuals is the man we just heard from - my friend and colleague, Sam Brownback. Now, Sam and I may not agree on every issue, but I could not be more impressed with his efforts on issues like AIDS, the crisis in the Congo, the genocide in Darfur and sexual trafficking - issues that touch some of the world's most vulnerable people. I am proud to work with him on many of these issues, and I'm proud to be by his side today.

I took my own trip to Africa a few months ago. As I'm sure Rick and Kay would agree, it's an experience that stays with you for quite some time. I visited an HIV/AIDS hospital in South Africa that was filled to capacity with people who walked hours - even days - just for the chance to seek help. I met courageous patients who refused to give up for themselves or their families. And I came across AIDS activists who meet resistance from their own government but keep on fighting anyway.

But of all that I heard, I encountered few stories as heartbreaking as the one recently told by Laurie Goering, a Chicago Tribune reporter based in Johannesburg who had covered our trip for her newspaper.

Three years ago, Laurie hired a woman named Hlengiwe Leocardia Mchunu as her nanny. Leo, as she is known, grew up as one of nine children in a small South African village. All through her life, she worked hard to raise her two kids and save every last penny she earned, and by the time Leo was hired as Laurie's nanny, she had almost finished paying off the mortgage on her home. She had even hoped to use the extra money from her new job to open a refuge for local children who had been orphaned by AIDS.

Then one day, Leo received a phone call that her eldest brother had fallen ill. At first he told everyone it was diabetes, but later, in the hospital, admitted to the family it was AIDS. He died a few days later. His wife succumbed to the disease as well. And Leo took in their three children.

Six months later, Leo got another phone call. Her younger brother had also become sick with AIDS. She cared for him and nursed him as she did her first brother, but he soon died as well.

Leo's pregnant sister was next. And then another brother. And then another brother.She paid for their caskets and their funerals.

She took in their children and paid for their schooling. She ran out of money, and she borrowed what she could. She ran out again, and she borrowed even more.

And still, the phone calls continued. All across her tiny village, Leo watched more siblings and cousins and nieces and nephews test positive for HIV. She saw neighbors lose their families. She saw a grandmother house sixteen orphaned grandchildren under her roof. And she saw some children go hungry because there was no one to care for them at all.

You know, AIDS is a story often told by numbers. 40 million infected with HIV. Nearly 4.5 million this year alone. 12 million orphans in Africa. 8,000 deaths and 6,000 new infections every single day. In some places, 90% of those with HIV do not know they have it. And we just learned that AIDS is set to become the 3rd leading cause of death worldwide in the coming years.

They are staggering, these numbers, and they help us understand the magnitude of this pandemic. But when repeated by themselves, statistics can also numb - they can hide the individual stories and tragedies and hopes of the Leos who live the daily drama of this disease.

On this World AIDS day, these are the stories that the world needs to hear. They are the stories that touch our souls - and that call us to action.

I cannot begin to imagine what it would be like if Leo's family was my own. If I had to answer those phone calls - if I had to attend those funerals. All I know is that no matter how or why my family became sick, I would be called to care for them and comfort them and do what I could to help find a cure. I know every one of you would do the same if it were your family.

Here's the thing - my faith tells me that Leo's family is my family.

We are all sick because of AIDS - and we are all tested by this crisis. It is a test not only of our willingness to respond, but of our ability to look past the artificial divisions and debates that have often shaped that response. When you go to places like Africa and you see this problem up close, you realize that it's not a question of either treatment or prevention - or even what kind of prevention - it is all of the above. It is not an issue of either science or values - it is both. Yes, there must be more money spent on this disease. But there must also be a change in hearts and minds; in cultures and attitudes. Neither philanthropist nor scientist; neither government nor church, can solve this problem on their own - AIDS must be an all-hands-on-deck effort.

Let's talk about what these efforts involve. First, if we hope to win this fight, we must stop new infections - we must do what we can to prevent people from contracting HIV in the first place.

Now, too often, the issue of prevention has been framed in either/or terms. For some, the only way to prevent the disease is for men and women to change their sexual behavior - in particular, to abstain from sexual activity outside of marriage. For others, such a prescription is unrealistic; they argue that we need to provide people with the tools they need to protect themselves from the virus, regardless of their sexual practices - in particular, by increasing the use of condoms, as well as by developing new methods, like microbicides, that women can initiate themselves to prevent transmission during sex. And in the debate surrounding how we should tackle the scourge of AIDS, we often see each side questioning the other's motives, and thereby impeding progress.

For me, this is a false argument. Let me say this - I don't think we can deny that there is a moral and spiritual component to prevention - that in too many places all over the world where AIDS is prevalent - including our own country, by the way - the relationship between men and women, between sexuality and spirituality, has broken down, and needs to be repaired.

It was striking to see this as I traveled through South Africa and Kenya. Again and again, I heard stories of men and women contracting HIV because sex was no longer part of a sacred covenant, but a mechanical physical act; because men had visited prostitutes and brought the disease home to their wives, or young girls had been subjected to rape and abuse.

These are issues of prevention we cannot walk away from. When a husband thinks it's acceptable to hide his infidelity from his wife, it's not only a sin, it's a potential death sentence. And when rape is still seen as a woman's fault and a woman's shame, but promiscuity is a man's prerogative, it is a problem of the heart that no government can solve. It is, however, a place where local ministries and churches like Saddleback can, and have, made a real difference - by providing people with a moral framework to make better choices.

Having said that, I also believe that we cannot ignore that abstinence and fidelity may too often be the ideal and not the reality - that we are dealing with flesh and blood men and women and not abstractions - and that if condoms and potentially microbicides can prevent millions of deaths, they should be made more widely available. I know that there are those who, out of sincere religious conviction, oppose such measures. And with these folks, I must respectfully but unequivocally disagree. I do not accept the notion that those who make mistakes in their lives should be given an effective death sentence. Nor am I willing to stand by and allow those who are entirely innocent - wives who, because of the culture they live in, often have no power to refuse sex with their husbands, or children who are born with the infection as a consequence of their parent's behavior - suffer when condoms or other measures would have kept them from harm.

Another area where we can make significant progress in prevention is by removing the stigma that goes along with getting tested for HIV-AIDS. The idea that in some places, nine in ten people with HIV have no idea they're infected is more than frightening - it's a ticking time bomb waiting to go off.

So we need to show people that just as there is no shame in going to the doctor for a blood test or a CAT scan or a mammogram, there is no shame in going for an HIV test. Because while there was once a time when a positive result gave little hope, today the earlier you know, the faster you can get help. My wife Michelle and I were able to take the test on our trip to Africa, after the Center for Disease Control informed us that by getting a simple 15 minute test, we may have encouraged as many as half-a-million Kenyans to get tested as well. Rick Warren has also taken the test. Sam Brownback and I took it today. And I encourage others in public life to do the same. We've got to spread the word to as many people as possible. It's time for us to set an example for others to follow.

Of course, even as we work diligently to slow the rate of new infection, we also have a responsibility to treat the 40 million people who are already living with HIV.

In some ways, this should be the easy part. Because we know what works. We know how to save people's lives. We know the medicine is out there and we know that wealthy countries can afford to do more.

That's why it was so frustrating for me to go to South Africa, and see the pain, and see the suffering, and then hear that the country's Minister of Health had promoted the use of beet root, sweet potato, and lemon juice as the best way to cure HIV. Thankfully, the South African government eventually repudiated this, but it's impossible to overestimate how important it is for political leaders like this to set a good example for their people.

We should never forget that God granted us the power to reason so that we would do His work here on Earth - so that we would use science to cure disease, and heal the sick, and save lives. And one of the miracles to come out of the AIDS pandemic is that scientists have discovered medicine that can give people with HIV a new chance at life.

We are called to give them that chance. We have made progress - in South Africa, treatment provided to pregnant women has drastically reduced the incidents of infants born with the infection. But despite such progress, only one in every five people with HIV around the world is receiving antiretroviral drug treatment. One in every five. We must do better. We should work with drug companies to reduce the costs of generic anti-retroviral drugs, and work with developing nations to help them build the health infrastructure that's necessary to get sick people treated - this means more money for hospitals and medical equipment, and more training for nurses and doctors.

We need a renewed emphasis on nutrition. Right now we're finding out that there are people who are on the drugs, who are getting treatment, who are still dying because they don't have any food to eat. This is inexcusable - especially in countries that have sufficient food supplies. So we must help get them that nutrition, and this is another place where religious organizations that have always provided food to the hungry can help a great deal.

And even as we focus on the enormous crisis in Africa, we need to remember that the problem is not in Africa alone. In the last few years, we have seen an alarming rise in infection rates in the Middle East, Southeast Asia, the former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and the Caribbean. And on this World AIDS day, we cannot forget the crisis occurring in our own backyard. Right here in the United States, AIDS is now the leading cause of death for African American women aged 25-34, and we are also seeing many poorer and rural communities fail to get the resources they need to deal with their vulnerable populations - a problem that unfortunately some in Congress are trying to address by taking money away from larger cities that are still facing enormous problems of their own.

Now let me say this - I think that President Bush and this past Congress should be applauded for the resources they have contributed to the fight against HIV and AIDS. Through our country's emergency plan for AIDS relief, the United States will have contributed more than $15 billion over five years to combat HIV-AIDS overseas. And the Global Fund, with money from the United States and other countries, has done some heroic work to fight this disease. As I traveled throughout Africa this summer, I was proud of the tangible impact that all this money was having, often through coordinated efforts with the Centers for Disease Control, the State Department, foreign governments, and non-governmental organizations.

So our first priority in Congress should be to reauthorize this program when it expires in 2008. Our second priority should be to reassess what's worked and what hasn't so that we're not wasting one dollar that could be saving someone's life.

But our third priority should be to actually boost our contribution to this effort. With all that is left to be done in this struggle - with all the other areas of the world that need our help - it's time for us to add at least an additional $1 billion a year in new money over the next five years to strengthen and expand the program to places like Southeast Asia, India, and Eastern Europe, where the pandemic will soon reach crisis proportions.

Of course, given all the strains that have been placed on the U.S. budget, and given the extraordinary needs that we face here at home, it may be hard to find the money. But I believe we must try. I believe it will prove to be a wise investment. The list of reasons for us to care about AIDS is long. In an interconnected, globalized world, the ability of pandemics to spread to other countries and continents has never been easier or faster than it is today. There are also security implications, as countries whose populations and economies have been ravaged by AIDS become fertile breeding grounds for civil strife and even terror.

But the reason for us to step up our efforts can't simply be instrumental. There are more fundamental reasons to care. Reasons related to our own humanity. Reasons of the soul.

Like no other illness, AIDS tests our ability to put ourselves in someone else's shoes - to empathize with the plight of our fellow man. While most would agree that the AIDS orphan or the transfusion victim or the wronged wife contracted the disease through no fault of their own, it has too often been easy for some to point to the unfaithful husband or the promiscuous youth or the gay man and say "This is your fault. You have sinned."

I don't think that's a satisfactory response. My faith reminds me that we all are sinners.

My faith also tells me that - as Pastor Rick has said - it is not a sin to be sick. My Bible tells me that when God sent his only Son to Earth, it was to heal the sick and comfort the weary; to feed the hungry and clothe the naked; to befriend the outcast and redeem those who strayed from righteousness.

Living His example is the hardest kind of faith - but it is surely the most rewarding. It is a way of life that can not only light our way as people of faith, but guide us to a new and better politics as Americans.

For in the end, we must realize that the AIDS orphan in Africa presents us with the same challenge as the gang member in South Central, or the Katrina victim in New Orleans, or the uninsured mother in North Dakota.

We can turn away from these Americans, and blame their problems on themselves, and embrace a politics that's punitive and petty, divisive and small.

Or we can embrace another tradition of politics - a tradition that has stretched from the days of our founding to the glory of the civil rights movement, a tradition based on the simple idea that we have a stake in one another - and that what binds us together is greater than what drives us apart, and that if enough people believe in the truth of that proposition and act on it, then we might not solve every problem, but we can get something meaningful done for the people with whom we share this Earth.

Let me close by returning to the story of Leo, that South African woman burdened by so much death and despair. Sometime after the death of her fifth sibling, she decided that she wasn't just going to stand idly by. She decided to call the town's first public meeting about the AIDS crisis - something that no one had even talked about, let alone met about. 200 people showed up. Some had walked for miles to get there, a few with their grandchildren on their back.

One by one, they stood up and broke their silence, and they told their stories. Stories of tragedy, and stories of hope. And when they were done, Leo rose and said, "I don't know whether we will win this war, but I'm looking for people who will stand up and face the reality. The time for sitting silently has come to an end."

Everything did not suddenly get better after that meeting, but some things did. Despite all the children she had to raise and all the sick relatives she still had to care for, Leo still decided to open the AIDS orphanage she had dreamed about so long ago. She began building a daycare center that would house one hundred orphans. And she started plans on a youth center and a soup kitchen.

I hear that part of the story and I think, if this woman who has so little, and has lost so much, can do so much good - if she can still make a way out of no way - then what are we waiting for?

Corinthians says that we are all of one spirit, and that "if one part suffers, every part suffers with it." But it also says, "if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it."

On this World AIDS day, it is the stories of overcoming, and not just illness, that the world needs to hear. Yes, the stories of sadness call us to suffer with the sick. But stories like Leo's also call us to honor her example, rejoice in the hope that it brings, and work to help her find that brighter future. Thank you, and God Bless you

2006-12-16T19:57:00.001+13:00

It is thyself, mine own self's better part;
Mine eye's clear eye, my dear hearst's deaer heart;
My food, my fortune, and my sweet hope's aim,
My sole earth's heaven, and my heaven's claim.
- The Comedy of Errors, III.ii.65-68

2006-12-16T19:57:00.000+13:00

It is estimated that if Shakespeare was alive today, he would approx. $55 million per annum in royalties.

The Bard

2006-12-16T19:55:00.000+13:00

Approximately 1700 English words and phrases are credited to Shakespeare, including "addiction", "love letter", "cold-hearted", "wild-goose-chase", and "courtship".

Best Inventions of 2006

2006-12-16T19:40:00.000+13:00

TIME has recently published it's pick of the coolest inventions of this year. These include Allerca's cats that bred to be hypo-allergenic by selecting a breed that lacks the protein that causes reactions in humans. Then there's Universal Architecture's levitating bed that has super-strong repelling magnets that allow the mattress to float in mid-air and support almost 900 kg. Or the awesome life-like robot created by the Xi'an Superman Sculpture Research Project:

"Some robots do cool tricks; others just look cool. At the annual China Robot Expo in Beijing in October, Zou Ren Ti, founder of the Xi'an Superman Sculpture Research Council, unveiled the third edition of a robot his team is developing that is supposed to look exactly like himself. While the mechanical Zou Ren Ti (named after the inventor, of course) can move its face and speak, its most impressive feature is its skin, which is made of silica gel and looks so lifelike that some expo attendees couldn't tell the real Zou from his double."

The Listeners by Walter de la Mere

2006-12-16T12:22:00.000+13:00

'Is there anybody there?' said the Traveller,
Knocking on the moonlit door;
And his horse in the silence champed the grasses
Of the forest's ferny floor:

And a bird flew up out of the turret,
Above the Traveller's head
And he smote upon the door again a second time;'
Is there anybody there?' he said.

But no one descended to the Traveller;
No head from the leaf-fringed sill
Leaned over and looked into his grey eyes,
Where he stood perplexed and still.

But only a host of phantom listeners
That dwelt in the lone house then
Stood listening in the quiet of the moonlight
To that voice from the world of men:

Stood thronging the faint moonbeams on the dark stair,
That goes down to the empty hall,
Hearkening in an air stirred and shaken
By the lonely Traveller's call.

And he felt in his heart their strangeness,
Their stillness answering his cry,
While his horse moved, cropping the dark turf,'
Neath the starred and leafy sky;

For he suddenly smote on the door, even
Louder, and lifted his head:-
'Tell them I came, and no one answered,
That I kept my word,' he said

.Never the least stir made the listeners,
Though every word he spake
Fell echoing through the shadowiness of the still house
From the one man left awake:

Ay, they heard his foot upon the stirrup,
And the sound of iron on stone,
And how the silence surged softly backward,
When the plunging hoofs were gone.

-- Walter De La Mare

Kiwi joke of the week

2006-12-16T12:20:00.000+13:00

Kiwi bloke was on earth doing the Haka. Somewhere in space, Aliens were watching this unusual dance.

"Kamate, kamate, ka-ora, ka-ora......"

The Aliens were very interested and they wanted to see what would happen if they would take a part of his brain away without him even knowing. So with their alien technology they sent a laser beam down that hit the Kiwi's head and took a part of his brain away. The Aliens then sat back to see what would happen.

"Ka-mate, ka-mate, ka-ora, ka-ora......."

What the??? The Aliens were amazed with what they were seeing. The Kiwi guy could operate with less than a full brain. So they decided to send the beam down and take another part of his brain. The Aliens watched on.

"Ka-mate, ka-mate, ka-ora, ka-ora......""

WHAT!!!" the Aliens said to each other. "These Kiwis are very clever people even with half a brain. Let's see what happens if we take the rest of it away and leave him with no brain at all!"So with a push of a button the Aliens sent the beam down and took away the final part of the Kiwi's brain. "Now surely he won't know anything at all.He should be too dumb and stupid to do anything now?"And sure enough, with no brain and no knowledge of anything at all as the Aliens watched on the bloke sang,

"WALTZING MATILDA, WALTZING MATILDA......"

Sometimes it DOES take a Rocket Scientist!!

2006-12-16T12:10:00.000+13:00

Scientists at Roll Royce built a gun specifically to launch dead chickens at the windshields of airliners and military jets, all travelling at maximum velocity. The idea was to simulate the frequent incidents of collisions with airborne fowl to test the strength of the windshields. American engineers heard about the gun and were eager to test it on the windshields of their new high-speed trains. Arrangements were made and a gun was sent to the American engineers. When the gun was fired, the engineers watched in shock as the chicken hurled out of the barrel, crashed into the shatterproof shield, smashed it to smithereens, blasted through the control console, snapped the engineer's back-rest in two and embedded itself in the back wall of the cabin. The horrified engineers sent Rolls Royce the film of the disastrous results of the experiment, along with the designs of the windshield and begged the British scientists for suggestions.

You're going to love this......

Rolls Royce responded with a one-line memo
"Defrost the chicken."

The Indictment of Bush - Day Two

2006-12-16T11:55:00.000+13:00

posted November 29, 2006 at 10:13 am

Tomgram: De la Vega, A Predisposition to Invade

[Note: For those in the Santa Barbara area in California, Elizabeth de la Vega will be speaking on December 10th at a rally, one of many events being organized around the country for Human Rights (and Impeachment) Day. She'll be on stage with Ann Wright, Dennis Loo, and David Swanson (who also writes for Tomdispatch.com) among others. For more on this event and others that day visit Swanson's AfterDowningStreet.org website.]

With the presentation of the first day of grand jury testimony from former federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega's new book, United States v. George W. Bush et al., the case against the top officials of the Bush administration for defrauding the American people into war in Iraq comes to a provisional end at Tomdispatch. What the Bush administration did, De la Vega argued in "A Fraud Worse than Enron", Part 1 of her series at this site, was a crime, conceptually similar to the Enron case and should be treated as such. It was, in fact, nothing less than the Enronization of American foreign policy. It was also a crime for which there should be actual legal culpability and so, in part 2 of her series, she produced a hypothetical indictment for fraud against the main actors in the case, just as she had, over her career, presented numerous fra! ud indictments to grand juries.

Today, "FBI Special Agent Linda Campbell" begins to lay out that case for fraud by discussing the administration's "predisposition to invade Iraq." Those of you who want to read De la Vega's brilliantly argued full case against George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, and Colin Powell should promptly purchase a copy of her book either at Amazon, at the website of the independent publisher, Seven Stories Press, or at your local independent bookstore.

De la Vega's superb book, like the testimony of "FBI Special Agent Linda Campbell" below, is fiction of a high order, based on a deep knowledge of exactly what the Bush administration did to us and how they did it. What happens next is, in truth, in the hands of the same American people who were scammed by this administration. Only history will tell us the results. Tom

The Grand Jury Testimony
United States v. George W. Bush
By Elizabeth de la Vega

Testimony of FBI Special Agent Linda Campbell

Assistant U.S. Attorney: Good morning everyone. We're back here in the case of United States v. George W. Bush et al. Let's start by looking at Exhibit 1 in your packets. It's a chart that lists the main points we're going to cover in the grand jury.

Ex. 1 Evolution of the Fraud
* Bush, Cheney, et al. were predisposed to invade Iraq even before they were elected.* They secretly began to plan the invasion immediately after September 11. Bush requested an Iraq war plan in November 2001 and began escalating military activity.* They enlisted biased political appointees to find evidence to justify a war beginning in October 2001. * They began, without a reasonable basis, to imply that Iraq was linked to the September 11 attacks and posed an urgent threat in the fall of 2001. * They began a massive fraud campaign in September 2002 to overcome weak public support for an invasion and manipulate Congress into passing an authorization allowing the President to use force against Iraq. * They invaded Iraq in March 2003, knowing that their stated grounds for war were false, fraudulent, and without reasonable basis.

Today, we'll talk about the administration's predisposition to invade Iraq.

Now, why is that relevant? Remember I told you that many fraud conspiracies begin as legitimate enterprises? They evolve into criminal activity when people begin to deceive others in response to problems or obstacles to achieving their goals. So, in any fraud case we need to know what the defendants' original objectives were.

Would somebody go get our witness? Thanks.

[Whereupon the witness enters the room and is sworn]

Q. Could you please tell us your full name and what you do?

A. My name is Linda Marie Campbell and I'm a Special Agent with the FBI -- have been for sixteen years.

Q. What is your current assignment?

A. I'm one of eight agents on the task force that's investigating whether the President and his senior advisers defrauded Americans about prewar intelligence. But normally my office is in Boston. Home of Tom Brady -- the Patriot -- and of course, Sam Adams -- the beer and the patriot -- with a small "p." I do fraud cases, mainly.

Q. Could you tell us about your background? Sort of a Reader's Digest version?

A. Sure. I was an Air Force brat, so we lived all over--Georgia, Germany, Hawaii--until I was about twelve, when we landed at Otis Air Force Base on Cape Cod. After Boston College, I started teaching English at Catholic Memorial. I was going to coach softball, go down the Cape in the summer, eat fried clams. But one day I just thought, you know, I really can't stand talking about Hester Prynne for one more minute, and it seemed as if it would be wicked cool to become an FBI agent. So I applied.

Q. Has it been wicked cool?

A. Yes and no. One thing about the FBI is that they always send you somewhere that's not where you want to be, even if no one else does want to be where you want to be. Does that make any sense? So I asked to go to Boston after Quantico . . .

Q. And where'd they send you?

A. Tulsa, Oklahoma. But only for two years, because I took a language aptitude test and, next thing I knew, I was at the Monterey Defense Language Institute, learning Russian. I worked in DC for a few years and finally got back to Boston last summer. Although, now I'm in DC again working on this case. I'm also on the Emergency Response and Disaster Recovery Team.
Not exactly condensed was it?

Q. No, but that's ok. You were, in fact, part of the team at the Pentagon after 9/11, weren't you?

A. Yes, I was. I will never forget it.

Q. Jurors, you recall that you may only consider evidence your hear from the witnesses? That means we occasionally present testimony about things people already know.
Like, in this case, September 11, 2001. What happened on that day?

A. On September 11, nineteen men hijacked four commercial airplanes -- United Flight 175 and American Airlines 11 out of Logan, United Flight 93 out of Newark, and American Airlines 77 out of Washington/Dulles. They crashed two planes into the World Trade Towers in New York and one into the Pentagon. The fourth plane, United Flight 93, crashed in Pennsylvania after the passengers stormed the cockpit. In all, nearly 3,000 people were killed. It was a nightmare.

Q. Were you working at the time?

A. I was at firearms training, but I called my supervisor and told him I'd go wherever they needed me for disaster response. By 5:00 p.m., I'm headed to DC on the Mass Pike, with my Dunkin' Donuts iced coffee. One of the four essential food groups, by the way.

Q. Did you already know who committed the attacks?

A. Basically, yes. By late morning, really, everyone was talking about it having been al Qaeda and, of course, Osama Bin Laden. It was even on the radio. No specifics, but it was only a day or so before we heard those. The main hijacker was Mohamed Atta, who, along with 14 others, was from Saudi Arabia. Two were from Yemen and two were from Lebanon.

Q. We'll have more about this later, but -- bottom line -- was there ever any evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the September 11 hijackings?

A. No, not a bit.

Q. But your investigation has shown, has it not, that before the war, a majority of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was somehow involved?

A. Yes.

Q. Danny Crain -- Special Agent Crain -- will be testifying about that in more detail, but in the meantime, have you determined how people came to believe that?

A. Unfortunately, yes. President Bush -- and Cheney and Rice and Rumsfeld and Powell -- deliberately gave people that impression, or allowed them to have it. That's Danny's area of testimony, I know, but let me say this: In fraud cases, we don't have to prove that people were actually deceived, but the case is stronger when you can prove they were. And here we know that many people came to believe many things about Iraq that were just false--including that there was some 9/11 connection.

Q. Well, let's turn to --

A. May I just add something?

Q. Of course.

A. Sometimes, the best way to understand the impact of fraud is not so much the number of victims, but the stories of the victims. Like in the movie Why We Fight, Wilton Sekzer. He was a retired cop whose son died in the World Trade Center. He strongly supported the war against Iraq, but only because he thought it was related to 9/11.
So, in 2004, when the President said not only that he had no evidence linking Saddam to the 9/11 attacks, but also "I don't know where people got the idea that I connected Iraq to 9/11," Mr. Sekzer was devastated. I'll read what he said:
What did he [Bush] just say? I mean, I almost jumped out of the chair. I don't know where people got the idea that I connected Iraq to 9/11. What is he, nuts or what? What the hell did we go in there for? We're getting back for 9/11. Well, if he didn't have anything to do with 9/11, why did we go in there? I was mad. I was mad. My first thought is: you know, you're a liar.

Q. And he felt betrayed?

A. Absolutely.

Q. Was he the only one?

A. No. As of July 2003, approximately 71 percent of the people in the United States believed that the President had deliberately implied that there was a link between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein.
***
11:00 A.M.
Assistant U.S. Attorney: How's the temperature? I got GSA to turn off the air conditioning.
Grand Juror: No kidding. Now it's way too hot.
Second Grand Juror: Are we allowed to vote someone off the Grand Jury?

Q. It's tempting.
Agent Campbell, what evidence shows that Bush et al. were predisposed to invade Iraq before January 2001?

A. Well, we have to start back in 1992, after the first Gulf War.

Q. Ok. We're not going anywhere.

A. As some jurors may know, the ground-assault phase of the first Gulf War had ended after a hundred hours, because George H. W. Bush decided not to send troops on into Baghdad. Afterward, there was a bloodbath as Saddam Hussein put down a Shiite rebellion in southern Iraq.
At the time, at least publicly, Cheney, who was Secretary of Defense, supported Bush Sr.'s decision. He said if we'd gone into Baghdad, we'd still have forces there and we would be running the country. Cheney didn't think Saddam Hussein was worth "that damned many" casualties, meaning more than the 146 American soldiers who had already died.

Q. Does it appear that Cheney later changed his mind?

A. Yes. But Libby and Wolfowitz disagreed from the beginning.

Q. Who are Libby and Wolfowitz?

A. Libby is I. Lewis Libby, Cheney's aide in 1992. In 2001 he became a top adviser, mainly on foreign-policy issues, for Cheney and also for Bush. Until he got indicted. Paul Wolfowitz was also Cheney's aide in 1992 and in 2001 became Rumsfeld's Deputy Secretary of Defense.
Libby, Wolfowitz, and Cheney had a foreign-policy philosophy that's been described as neoconservative. They first wrote about it, as far as we know, in a 1992 paper called "Defense Planning Guidance." It was never published, but the draft was leaked to the press, so we know its main points. They wanted the United States to "assert world dominance" and to "to punish" or "threaten to punish" possible future aggressors to protect U.S. access to Persian Gulf oil or stop the proliferation of WMD -- weapons of mass destruction. They also recommended that the United States ignore the UN Security Council and act alone if it chose to do so.

Q. How were those ideas received at the time?

A. About as well as Stephen Colbert at the White House Correspondents' dinner.

Q. Not a warm reception, I take it. So what happened to "Defense Policy Guidance"?

A. Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Libby published a watered-down version of it in 1993 called "Defense Strategy for the 1990s."

Q. Did other future Bush-Cheney administration members publicly state their positions about the Middle East and/or Iraq in the 1990s?

A. Yes, they did. In 1996 Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser wrote a paper for the Israeli government, called "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," that advocated invading Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein.

Q. And how did those three figure in the Bush-Cheney administration?

A. From 2001 to 2003, Perle was Chairman of Bush's Defense Policy Board. Feith was Bush's Undersecretary of Defense for Policy and Wurmser was brought in after 9/11 as part of the Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group that reviewed raw intelligence looking for evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda or Osama Bin Laden.

Q. In 1997, there was --

A. Also, oh, sorry --

Q. No, go ahead. But if we both talk at the same time, the court reporter might quit.

A. What I was going to say was that David Wurmser also publicly advocated a United States invasion of Iraq. Twice, actually. Once in a 1997 Wall Street Journal editorial and then in a November 2000 Washington Times op-ed, where he argued that the United States and Israel should "strike fatally, not merely disarm, the centers of radicalism in the region -- the regimes of Damascus, Baghdad, Tripoli, Tehran, and Gaza."

Grand Juror: Someone who had publicly advocated using military force to remove Saddam Hussein and attacking Syria, Libya, Iran, and Gaza was assigned to look for evidence to justify invading Iraq?

A. Yes. He is now Vice President Cheney's adviser on the Middle East.

Q. All right. In 1997, a group called Project for a New American Century, or PNAC, was formed. What was that?

A. According to its website, PNAC is a think tank dedicated to "American global leadership." Its stated principles were: (1) promoting a bold foreign policy; (2) significantly increasing defense spending; and (3) meeting threats "before they become dire."
Cheney, Rumsfeld, Libby, and Wolfowitz were founding members, as was Jeb Bush, President Bush's brother.

Q. Did the founding statement mention Iraq?

A. No, but a letter the members of PNAC wrote to Clinton in 1998 did.

Q. Before we get to that, were there other public statements advocating forcible removal of Saddam Hussein made by future Bush-Cheney people in 1997?

A. Yes, in a December 1997 issue of the Weekly Standard magazine called "Saddam Must Go: A How-to Guide," Wolfowitz and the current U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, called for "sustained attacks" on Hussein's military and security forces to get rid of him.

Q. Early in 1998, the Project for a New American Century wrote the letter you just mentioned, right?

A. Right. Yes, most of it is excerpted in Exhibit 2:

Ex. 2 Excerpts from January 26, 1998 Letter from PNAC to President William J. Clinton
We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. . . . We urge you to . . . enunciate a new strategy . . . [that] should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power...
The policy of "containment" of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months...
It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.
Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power.
In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.

Q. Any familiar names in the signature block?

A. Twelve of the eighteen signers became Bush-Cheney advisers or appointees: Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Khalilzad, Perle, as well as Elliot Abrams, Richard Armitage, Paula Dobriansky, Peter Rodman, R. James Woolsey, and Robert Zoellick.

Q. Well, it's 12:30 and I'm "stahvin," as Agent Campbell would say. So let's go eat.
***
1:30 P.M.
Assistant U.S. Attorney: Did everyone make it back? Good.

Grand Juror: Agent Campbell, doesn't this 1998 letter contain the same arguments that the Bush administration made in 2002?

A. Yes it does: (1) containment wasn't working; (2) inspections wouldn't work; (3) Saddam would definitely have WMD if we didn't act immediately; and (4) we didn't need to work with the UN.

Grand Juror: What does "containment" mean?

A. In the context of Iraq, it referred mainly to the use of UN sanctions and restrictions to prevent Saddam Hussein from acquiring WMD and from threatening his neighbors.

Q. We're going to switch gears and turn to the 2000 election campaign. Before that, any questions?

Grand Juror: Was Bush in PNAC?

A.No. But in 1999, he hired Condoleezza Rice and her future Deputy National Security Adviser, Stephen Hadley, along with five PNAC people -- Perle, Wolfowitz, Armitage, Zoellick, and Dov Zakheim -- to be campaign foreign policy advisers. Four of those five had previously advocated forcibly removing Saddam Hussein.

Q.> During the 2000 campaign, did Bush and Cheney talk about U.S. global preeminence and taking preventive military action against possible threats from WMD or to our oil interests in the Middle East?

A. No. Well, yes and no.

Q. Oh, okay. Everybody got that, then?

A. Well, behind the scenes, with the neoconservative crowd, Bush and Cheney conveyed a very strong message. In fact, in September 2000 Libby, Wolfowitz, and ten other future Bush-Cheney appointees signed a policy statement, called "Rebuilding America's Defenses," that was posted on the PNAC website. The paper, which described itself as a "blueprint for maintaining global U.S. preeminence" that grew out of Cheney's 1992 "Defense Policy Guidance" paper, advocated substantially increased defense spending. Regarding the Middle East, it said the "need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
In plain English: We should have permanent military bases in the Middle East.

Q. Did the statement indicate whether PNAC thought the public would agree with this strategy?

A. Yes. PNAC acknowledged that its goals would likely take a long time to achieve, "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor."

Q. Anyone could look at this website, couldn't they?

A. Yes. But it was not well known outside of DC and certain conservative circles, and publicly, especially in the general election, Bush and Cheney said nothing whatsoever about a "bold" foreign policy or any other PNAC principles.

Q. Can you give us some examples?

A. Sure. On August 27, 2000, on Meet the Press, Cheney said that the U.S. should not act as "an imperialist power, willy-nilly moving into capitals in that part of the world, taking down governments." He was talking about the Middle East.
Also, in the presidential debate against Al Gore at UMass on October 3, Bush said he would "take the use of force very seriously" and "be guarded" in his approach. He also said he disagreed with Vice President Gore about the use of troops: "He [Gore] believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation-builders."
Then, in the October 11 debate, Bush was asked how the world should view us and he said they would welcome us "if we're a humble nation, but strong." He also said we needed to "project strength in a way that promotes freedom."

Q. What did Bush say about the need for building coalitions?

A. One of Bush's main themes was that he was a leader and that leaders build coalitions. On December 2, 1999, for example, he said he would "keep the peace" by "strengthening alliances, which says [sic] America cannot go alone, we must be peacemakers not peacekeepers." In the October 11 debate, he said, "It's important to have credibility and credibility is formed by being strong with your friends and resoluting [sic] your determination." It was especially important to have strong ties in the Middle East, he said, because of the oil there.

Q. Did Bush or Cheney talk about forcibly removing Saddam Hussein during the 2000 campaign?

A. Cheney never did, but early on, Bush seemed to say just that, perhaps inadvertently. In the December 2, 1999, New Hampshire Republican primary debate, the Fox News reporter Brit Hume asked him what he would do differently from Clinton regarding Saddam Hussein. And Bush said:
I wouldn't ease the [U.N.] sanctions, and I wouldn't try to negotiate with him. I'd make darn sure that he lived up to the agreements that he signed back in the early '90s. I'd be helping the opposition groups. And if I found in any way, shape or form that he was developing weapons of mass destruction, I'd take 'em out. I'm surprised he's still there. I think a lot of other people are as well.
Now, it's odd. The transcript says "'em" -- and I have no idea who's responsible for that. But, at the time, Hume clearly thought Bush was referring to "him," as in Saddam Hussein. And he -- Hume, I mean -- said, "Take him out?" And Bush responded, "To out [sic] the weapons of mass destruction." Which did not follow from saying "I'm surprised he's still there."

Q. Did Bush ever say "take 'em out" relating to Iraq or Saddam Hussein again during the campaign?

A. No. Although, in February 2000, he said, "There won't be any weapons of mass destruction left in Iraq if I'm the Commander-in-Chief." Usually, though, when Bush talked about Iraq, he'd say something like achieving world peace would require "firmness with regimes like North Korea and Iraq."
Actually, when you look carefully at what he said, he conveyed almost no information whatsoever.

Q. Have you come across a notable instance where Bush used the term "Commander-in-Chief"?

A. Yes. In May 1999, during an interview with a family friend and reporter named Mickey Herskovitz for a campaign book that someone else ended up writing, Bush said, "One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a Commander-in-Chief." He also said:
My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it. If I have a chance to invade -- if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.
n Arms Control and International Security;",1]

Grand Juror: In other words, Bush was saying that the way to be seen as a great leader was to start a war?

A. It appears so.

Q. Let's take our afternoon break.
***
3:15 P.M.
Assistant U.S. Attorney: Special Agent Campbell, you mentioned that numerous advocates of the Project for a New American Century principles relating to U.S. global dominance and preventive attacks ended up in the Bush-Cheney administration in 2001.
How many of the people brought in by Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld were public proponents of the PNAC principles?

A. Public proponents of the PNAC principles?

Q. Precisely.

A. At least twenty-eight, including advisers and consultants, as well as officials, appointees, and staff. They're all listed in Exhibit 3.

Q. Does everyone have Exhibit 3?

Ex. 3 Public Proponents of PNAC Principles
1. Paul Wolfowitz: Deputy Secretary of Defense;2. I. Lewis Libby: Assistant to the President/ Vice President's Chief of Staff;3. Eliot Abrams: Assistant to the President/ Deputy National Security Adviser for Global Security;4. Stephen Cambone: Former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Policy/current Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence [newly created position];5. Richard Armitage: Deputy Secretary of State;6. Christopher Williams: Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense;7. John Bolton: UN Ambassador/Former Undersecretary of Defense for Arms Control and International Security;8. Peter Rodman: Assistant Director of Defense for National Security Affairs;9. Paula Dobriansky: Undersecretary of Defense for Democracy and Global Affairs;10. Douglas Feith: Former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy;11. David Wurmser: Middle East Adviser to the VP/Former Special Adviser to the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security;
12. Abram Shulsky: Director of Defense Department's Office of Special Plans;13. Zalmay Khalilzad: Ambassador to Iraq/Former Special Assistant to the President for Persian Gulf Affairs;14. Barry Watts: Office of the Secretary of Defense/Director of Program Analysis & Evaluation;15. Dov Zakheim: Undersecretary and Chief Financial for Defense Department;16. Mark Lagon: Deputy Assistant Secretary of State; 17. Robert B. Zoellick: Former U.S. Trade Rep-resentative/Former Deputy National Security Adviser;18. David Epstein: Staff, Secretary of Defense; 19. Richard Perle: Former Chairman, Defense Policy Board;20. Eliot Cohen: Defense Policy Board;21. Devon Gaffney-Cross: Defense Policy Board;22. Henry S. Rowen: Defense Policy Board;23. R. James Woolsey: Defense Policy Board;24. Richard V. Allen: Defense Policy Board;25. Daniel Goure: Consultant to Secretary of Defense;26. Gary Shmitt: Consultant to Secretary of Defense;27. Randy Scheuneman: Consultant to Secretary of Defense;28. William Schneider, Jr.: Chairman, Defense Science Board

Q. Out of those, how many had specifically and publicly called for the use of United States military force to depose Saddam Hussein?

A. Seventeen had already called for the forcible removal of Saddam Hussein.

Q. Those would include the Deputy Secretaries of Defense and State, as well as seven additional high-level appointees in the State and Defense Departments, correct?

A. Yes. Also, of course, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. Including Rumsfeld, eighteen of the Bush-Cheney administration appointees had publicly called for the removal of Saddam Hussein before 2001, including Rumsfeld.
Grand Juror: The evidence about Project for a New American Century, and Bush talking about being a Commander-in-Chief?

Q. Yes?

Grand Juror: Are you saying that Bush and Cheney were definitely planning to invade Iraq from the beginning?

Q. No, and that is not something you have to decide in this case. The predisposition evidence shows the genesis and some of the motivation for the fraud, but it's not intended to be proof of the fraud itself. You could decide they were not predisposed to invade Iraq and still find probable cause to believe that they conspired to defraud the United States beginning on or before September 2002.
So, let's call it a day. Thank you for your testimony, Agent Campbell. Have a good evening, everyone.

[Note: For Part 1 of Elizabeth de la Vega, "A Fraud Worse than Enron" click here; for Part 2, "The Indictment," click here. For the final five days of grand jury testimony, be sure to pick up a copy of United States v. George W. Bush.]
Elizabeth de la Vega is a former federal prosecutor with more than 20 years of experience. During her tenure, she was a member of the Organized Crime Strike Force and Chief of the San Jose Branch of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California. Her pieces have appeared in the Nation Magazine, the Los Angeles Times, and Salon. She writes regularly for Tomdispatch.com. This day of grand jury testimony is part of her new book, United States v. George W. Bush et al. She may be contacted at
ElizabethdelaVega@Verizon.net.

Excerpted from United States v. George W. Bush et al. by Elizabeth de la Vega, published December 1, 2006 by Seven Stories Press and Tomdispatch.com.
Copyright 2006 Elizabeth de la Vega

The Indictment of Bush - Day One

2006-12-04T19:51:00.000+13:00

posted November 26, 2006 at 5:43 pm

Tomgram: Elizabeth de la Vega, Indicting Bush

Think of it as a Tomdispatch.com milestone. This is now the first website to "indict" the President, the Vice President, and their colleagues for defrauding us into war in Iraq. I put that "indict" in quotes because what follows, as former federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega makes clear in her new book United States v. George W. Bush et al., is "not an actual indictment." It can't be, of course; but consider it the second best thing.
De la Vega has, in her career as a prosecutor, prepared numerous fraud indictments and, as she argued in the first excerpt from her book posted at Tomdispatch earlier this week, "A Fraud Worse than Enron," what George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and their senior officials committed was a crime, not just in the colloquial sense of the word, but in the legal sense too (and not a victimless crime either). While their crime was of a magnitude that puts even Enron, no less run-of-the-mill fraud cases, to shame, it also has all the elements of a typical, small-time scam.

De la Vega's "hypothetical indictment" of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, and Colin Powell that you are about to read remains, unfortunately, in the realm of fantasy. But only for now. Until our world comes more fully to grips with the criminal nature of the Bush administration's acts, you can at least turn to the full de la Vega book. A Tomdispatch.com special project, produced in conjunction with Seven Stories Press, a wonderful independent publisher, it's officially published on December 1st (but available now).

You won't want to miss it. It's superbly done and -- though I hesitate to say it, given the nature of the subject matter -- genuinely enjoyable to read because De la Vega turns out to be as skilled a writer as she is a prosecutor, and applies both her talents to the book. So check out the indictment, read the first day of grand jury testimony (which will be posted at this site on Thursday), and in the meantime get the investigative ball rolling by purchasing the book at Amazon.com or, if you want to give all involved a few extra cents, directly at the Seven Stories website. After all, the excerpts at Tomdispatch can only give you a taste of the full case De la Vega makes. This book should be the political stocking-stuffer of the Holiday season.
Tom

The Indictment United States v. George W. Bush et al.
By Elizabeth de la Vega

Assistant United States Attorney: Good morning, Ladies and Gentlemen. We're here today in the case of United States v. George W. Bush et al. In addition to President Bush, the defendants are Vice President Richard B. Cheney, former National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice -- who's now the Secretary of State, of course -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and former Secretary of State Colin Powell.

It's a one-count proposed indictment: Conspiracy to Defraud the United States in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371. I'll explain the law that applies to the case this afternoon, but I'm going to hand out the indictment now, so you'll have some context for that explanation. Take as long as you need to read it, and then feel free to take your lunch break, but please leave your copy of the indictment with the foreperson. We'll meet back at one o'clock.

***
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Criminal No.
Plaintiff, )
) Conspiracy to Defraud
v. ) the United States
)
GEORGE W. BUSH, ) 18 U.S.C. Section 371
RICHARD B. CHENEY, )
CONDOLEEZZA RICE, )
DONALD M. RUMSFELD, and )
COLIN POWELL, )
Defendants )

INDICTMENT

THE GRAND JURY CHARGES:

Introductory Allegations

At times relevant to this Indictment:

1. The primary law of the United States Federal Government was set forth in the U.S. Constitution ("Constitution"), which provides that the first branch of government is the Legislative Branch ("Congress"). Pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Congress has certain powers and obligations regarding oversight of foreign affairs, including the powers to: (1) declare war; (2) raise and support the armed forces; and (3) tax and spend for the common good.

2. Article II of the Constitution establishes the Executive Branch. The Executive Power of the United States is vested in the President, who is also the Commander in Chief of the Armed Services.

3. Defendant GEORGE W. BUSH ("BUSH") has been employed as President of the United States since January 20, 2001. On that day, BUSH took a constitutionally mandated oath to faithfully execute the Office of President and to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. BUSH is also constitutionally obligated to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

4. As Chief Executive, BUSH exercised authority, direction, and control over the entire Executive Branch, which includes the White House, the Office of the Vice President, the Departments of State, Defense, and others, and the National Security Council.

5. Defendant RICHARD B. CHENEY ("CHENEY") has been employed as Vice President of the United States since January 20, 2001.

6. Defendant CONDOLEEZZA RICE ("RICE") was employed as the National Security Adviser from January 2001 to January 2005, when she became Secretary of State, a position she holds as of the date of this indictment. As National Security Adviser, RICE exercised direction, control, and authority over the National Security Council, which coordinates various national security and foreign policy agencies, including the Departments of Defense and State.

7. Defendant DONALD M. RUMSFELD ("RUMSFELD") has been employed as Secretary of Defense since January 2001.

8. Defendant COLIN M. POWELL ("POWELL") was employed as Secretary of State from January 2001 through January of 2005.

9. Before assuming their offices, CHENEY, RICE, RUMSFELD and POWELL took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.

10. As employees of the Executive Branch, BUSH, CHENEY, RICE, RUMSFELD, and POWELL were governed by Executive Orders 12674 and 12731. These Orders provide that Executive Branch employees hold their positions as a public trust and that the American people have a right to expect that they will fulfill that trust in accordance with certain ethical standards and principles. These include abiding by the Constitution and laws of the United States, as well as not using their offices to further private goals and interests.

11. Pursuant to the Constitution, their oaths of office, their status as Executive Branch employees, and their presence in the United States, BUSH, CHENEY, RICE, RUMSFELD, and POWELL, and their subordinates and employees, are required to obey Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, which prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States.

12. As used in Section 371, the term "to defraud the United States" means "to interfere with or obstruct one of its lawful government functions by deceit, craft, trickery, or at least by means that are dishonest." The term also means to "impair, obstruct, or defeat the lawful function of any department of government" by the use of "false or fraudulent pretenses or representations."

13. A "false" or "fraudulent" representation is one that is: (a) made with knowledge that it is untrue; (b) a half-truth; (c) made without a reasonable basis or with reckless indifference as to whether it is, in fact, true or false; or (d) literally true, but intentionally presented in a manner reasonably calculated to deceive a person of ordinary prudence and intelligence. The knowing concealment or omission of information that a reasonable person would consider important in deciding an issue also constitutes fraud.

14. Congress is a "department of the United States" within the meaning of Section 371. In addition, hearings regarding funding for military action and authorization to use military force are "lawful functions" of Congress.

15. Accordingly, the presentation of information to Congress and the general public through deceit, craft, trickery, dishonest means, and fraudulent representations, including lies, half-truths, material omissions, and statements made with reckless indifference to their truth or falsity, while knowing and intending that such fraudulent representations would influence Congress' decisions regarding authorization to use military force and funding for military action, constitutes interfering with, obstructing, impairing, and defeating a lawful government function of a department of the United States within the meaning of Section 371.
The Conspiracy to Defraud the United States

16. Beginning on or about a date unknown, but no later than August of 2002, and continuing to the present, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the defendants,
GEORGE W. BUSH,RICHARD B. CHENEY,CONDOLEEZZA RICE,DONALD M. RUMSFELD, andCOLIN M. POWELL,
and others known and unknown, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to defraud the United States by using deceit, craft, trickery, dishonest means, false and fraudulent representations, including ones made without a reasonable basis and with reckless indifference to their truth or falsity, and omitting to state material facts necessary to make their representations truthful, fair and accurate, while knowing and intending that their false and fraudulent representations would influence the public and the deliberations of Congress with regard to authorization of a preventive war against Iraq, thereby defeating, obstructing, impairing, and interfering with Congress' lawful functions of overseeing foreign affairs and making appropriations.

17. The Early Months of the Bush-Cheney Administration: Prior to January of 2001, BUSH, CHENEY, and RUMSFELD each demonstrated a predisposition to employ U.S. military force to invade the Middle East, including, specifically, to forcibly remove Saddam Hussein.

18. Since 1992, CHENEY has endorsed a "bold foreign policy" that includes using military force to "punish" or "threaten to punish" possible aggressors in order to protect the United States's access to Persian Gulf oil and to halt proliferation of weapons of mass destruction ("WMD"), a term that is customarily used to describe chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.

19. On or about January 26, 1998, RUMSFELD and seven other future BUSH-CHENEY administration appointees signed a letter sent by a conservative policy institute named "Project for a New American Century" ("PNAC") to then President William Clinton, which called for U.S. military action to forcibly remove Saddam Hussein from power.

20. In January 1999, BUSH named RICE and her future Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley ("Hadley"), as his presidential-campaign foreign-policy advisers, along with future Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz ("Wolfowitz") and four others who had publicly advocated forcibly removing Saddam Hussein.

21. On or before September 2000, 12 future BUSH-CHENEY administration appointees, including Wolfowitz, former Assistant to Vice President CHENEY, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and Rumsfeld's long-term aide Stephen Cambone, participated in drafting "Rebuilding America's Defenses," a PNAC policy statement which asserted that the "need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." PNAC acknowledged that its goals would take a long time to achieve "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event--like a new Pearl Harbor."

22. Once BUSH became the Republican candidate in the 2000 presidential election campaign, he and CHENEY informed the general public that they would be reluctant to use military force and did not believe that the United States should engage in "nation-building."

23. On and after January 20, 2001, BUSH and CHENEY caused to be appointed as senior foreign policy advisors and consultants, at least thirty-four persons who had publicly endorsed the PNAC principles of United States global preeminence and use of force to "punish" or "threaten to punish" emerging threats from weapons of mass destruction ("WMD") or impediments to United States access to oil in the Middle East. Of those appointees, eighteen had also publicly advocated forcibly removing Saddam Hussein.

24. In late December 2000, BUSH and CHENEY advised outgoing President William J. Clinton and others that, among potential foreign policy issues, BUSH's primary concern was Iraq.

25. On February 11, 2001, BUSH ordered the first airstrikes since 1998 to be conducted outside of the United Nations ("UN") agreed-upon No-Fly zones, to get Saddam Hussein's "attention."

26. The Attacks of September 11, 2001. On September 11, 2001, nineteen men hijacked four commercial airplanes. They crashed two planes into the World Trade Towers in New York City and another into the Pentagon in Washington, DC. The fourth plane crashed in Pennsylvania. In total, nearly 3,000 people died as a result of the September 11, 2001, attacks ("9/11").

27. Shortly afterward, United States intelligence agencies determined that 9/11 was the work of the terrorist organization al Qaeda, spearheaded by Osama Bin Laden. Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, two from Yemen, and two from Lebanon. This information, along with the conclusion that no evidence linked Saddam Hussein to the attacks or al Qaeda, was immediately communicated to BUSH, CHENEY, RICE, RUMSFELD, POWELL, and others.

28. BUSH-CHENEY administration members began discussing an invasion of Iraq immediately after 9/11. BUSH, RUMSFELD and others also assigned various subordinates, including former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, CIA Director George Tenet, and General Richard Meyers to look for intelligence that could justify attacking Saddam Hussein's regime.

29. On September 17, 2001, BUSH secretly ordered the formulation of preliminary plans for an invasion of Iraq, while admitting to his aides that no evidence existed to justify an attack.

30. On or about September 18, 2001, in response to BUSH's request, Clarke sent RICE a memo that stated: (a) the case for linking Hussein to 9/11 was weak; (b) only anecdotal evidence linked Hussein to al Qaeda; (c) Osama Bin Laden resented the secularism of Saddam Hussein; and (d) there was no confirmed reporting of Saddam cooperating with Bin Laden on unconventional weapons.

31. On September 20, 2001, BUSH informed British Prime Minister Tony Blair that after Afghanistan, the United States and Britain should return to the issue of invading Iraq.

32. U.S. Intelligence Community Assessments of Risk from Iraq in Effect on November 2001. On occasion, Executive Branch officials request assessments of current intelligence on risks posed by WMD in a given country. Although such assessments are coordinated by the Central Intelligence Agency ("CIA"), the final product incorporates the analyses, including dissenting opinions, of the intelligence branches of the Departments of State, Energy, Defense, the National Security Agency, and others, which are collectively called the Intelligence Community ("IC").

33. As of November 2001, the most recent assessment on Iraq was a December 2000 classified Intelligence Community Assessment ("ICA") called "Iraq: Steadily Pursuing WMD Capabilities." This ICA was a comprehensive update on possible Iraqi efforts to rebuild WMD and weapons delivery systems after the 1998 departure of International Atomic Energy Agency ("IAEA") representatives and UN weapons inspectors, who are collectively referred to as the United Nations Special Commission ("UNSCOM").

34. Regarding Iraq's possible nuclear program, the December 2000 NIE unanimously concluded that:
(a) The IAEA and UNSCOM had destroyed or neutralized Iraq's nuclear infrastructure, but Iraq still had a foundation for future nuclear reconstitution;(b) Iraq was continuing low-level theoretical research and training, and attempting to obtain dual-use items that cold be used to reconstitute its nuclear program;(c) if Iraq acquired a significant quantity of fissile material through foreign assistance, it could have a crude nuclear weapon within a year; if Iraq received foreign assistance, it would take five to seven years to produce enough weapons-grade fissile material for a nuclear weapon; and (d) Iraq did not appear to have reconstituted its nuclear weapons program.

35. Escalation of Military Activity and Planning for Invasion of Iraq. On November 21, 2001, BUSH secretly ordered preparation of a formal war plan for invading Iraq. Thereafter, for sixteen months, the BUSH-CHENEY administration expended substantial U.S. government funds in military activity and planning for invasion of Iraq, all without notice to, or approval by, the U.S. Congress.

36. BUSH did not receive an extensive briefing about possible WMD in Iraq before ordering a war plan, nor did he discuss the legitimacy of grounds for war with anyone. BUSH received no such briefing until December 21, 2002.

37. On or about November 27, 2001, RUMSFELD asked General "Tommy" Franks, head of Central Command, which supervises Middle East operations, to immediately prepare an Iraq war plan in response to BUSH's order.

38. Thereafter, Franks discussed numerous revised Iraq war plans with RUMSFELD. Between December 2001 and August 2002, BUSH, CHENEY, RICE, RUMSFELD, POWELL, and others held at least five lengthy meetings about Franks' plans. In August, BUSH ordered Franks to prepare to invade Iraq using the "Hybrid Plan," a combination of the "Running Start" and "Generated Start" plans developed previously.

39. During 2002, the United States and Great Britain increased air strikes in order to degrade Iraqi air defenses and began deploying troops to areas around Iraq.

40. On or about July 30, 2002, without approval by, or notice to, Congress, BUSH caused the diversion of $700 million from Afghanistan war funds into Iraq invasion preparations.

41. On September 5, 2002, without approval by, or notice to, Congress, BUSH caused approximately 100 United States and British aircraft to launch ballistic missiles at Iraq's major western air-defense facility.

42. By September 12, 2002, without approval by, or notice to, Congress, BUSH had caused the movement of 40,000 military personnel and over 350,000 tons of equipment to areas around Iraq. Franks also ordered Central Command to be moved to Al Udeid Air Base near Doha, Qatar.

43. Behind-the-Scenes Strategizing with British Officials: On or before March 2002, BUSH, RICE, Wolfowitz, and others secretly began discussing ways to persuade the public and foreign allies to accept Bush's goal of invading Iraq, with British Prime Minister Tony Blair ("Blair") and his advisers.

44. On March 12, 2002, in Washington, DC, RICE met with Blair's Foreign Policy Adviser Sir David Manning and informed him of BUSH's problems with persuading "international opinion that military action against Iraq was necessary and justified."

45. On March 17, 2002, in Washington, DC, British Ambassador Sir Christopher Meyer advised Wolfowitz that the two countries should "wrongfoot" Saddam Hussein by seeking a UN resolution that would require the readmission of weapons inspectors with the expectation that Saddam would create a justification for war by obstructing the inspections.

46. On April 6, 2002, in Crawford, Texas, BUSH and Blair discussed strategies to sway public opinion regarding military action in Iraq. Blair agreed to support a United States invasion if the two countries obtained a UN resolution first.

47. In mid-July, 2002, in Washington, DC, White House officials discussed Iraq with visiting British officials. Upon their return to London, these officials reported the talks to Blair in a meeting at 10 Downing St. on July 23, 2002. Among other things, Blair's advisers suggested that he urge BUSH to devise a more realistic political strategy for attacking Iraq, because a desire for "regime change" would not justify military action under international law.

48. In mid-July, 2002, in Washington, DC, CIA Director Tenet and others talked about the Bush administration's intentions regarding Iraq with Sir Richard Dearlove, the head of British Intelligence.

49. On July 23, 2002, during the Downing St. meeting described above, Dearlove informed Blair that in the United States "Military action was now seen as inevitable. BUSH wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

50. On July 23, 2002, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw also noted that BUSH had "made up his mind to take military action." Straw said he would urge POWELL to persuade BUSH to seek a UN resolution requiring Saddam Hussein to readmit weapons inspectors, in effect, suggesting the "wrongfooting" strategy that Meyer had described to Wolfowitz.

51. Behind-the-Scenes Efforts to Fix Intelligence Around the Policy. Within weeks after learning from Clarke, Tenet, and others that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had no involvement with either 9/11 or al Qaeda, RUMSFELD caused Deputy Undersecretary for Defense Douglas Feith ("Feith") to secretly create the Counter Terrorism Group ("CTEG"), a small unit of political appointees whose mission was to find links between Iraq and al Qaeda by reviewing raw intelligence that previously had been discarded as unreliable. CTEG reported weekly to RUMSFELD's long-term associate Stephen Cambone, and occasionally presented information directly to Wolfowitz, thereby circumventing standard IC procedures.

52. At some time in 2002, Feith also designated political appointees to work under his supervision in the newly-created Office of Special Plans, whose purpose was to develop and package information for use in marketing the President's plan for an invasion of Iraq. In the fall of 2002, this group presented information directly to RUMSFELD, to RICE's office, and to CHENEY's office, thereby circumventing standard IC procedures.

53. In the spring of 2002, CHENEY and his former aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, began visiting CIA headquarters to question CIA agents' assessments about Iraq. RUMSFELD and Deputy National Security Adviser Hadley also repeatedly pressed CIA Director Tenet and his subordinates to present a stronger case against Iraq.

54. Bush's Creation of the White House Iraq Group. By the summer of 2002, domestic and international support for BUSH's plan to invade Iraq was lukewarm. At the same time, Bush's chief political strategist and Senior Adviser Karl Rove and Kenneth Mehlman, head of the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives, were beginning to coordinate the President's involvement in the November 7, 2002, congressional election. Their overall goal was to gain Republican majorities in both houses of Congress so that the President would have the greatest possible support for his policies. Rove had specifically recommended that Republicans "focus on war" as a way to win elections. Consequently, in the summer of 2002, BUSH's efforts to win support for an invasion of Iraq and his efforts to assist Republican congressional candidates became inextricably intertwined.

55. In the summer of 2002, BUSH caused the creation of the White House Iraq Group, which was cochaired by BUSH's long-term political operatives Karl Rove and Karen Hughes, who remained BUSH's close associate even though she had resigned her position as Counselor to the President. This team, also called WHIG, was largely a political and public-relations entity that included RICE, Hadley, President's Chief of Staff Andrew Card, President's legislative liaison Nicholas Calio, CHENEY's key aide and veteran Republican political strategist Mary Matalin, CHENEY's senior adviser Libby, and James Wilkinson, another Republican campaign consultant.

56. On or about September 6, 2002, Rove and Card publicly announced that: (a) the BUSH-CHENEY administration was beginning to "roll out" its case for an invasion of Iraq; (b) its public-relations campaign was specifically directed at forcing Congress to pass a resolution authorizing the President to use military force in Iraq; (c) BUSH wanted the resolution passed in about five weeks, before the 2002 election; and (d) in the end, it would be difficult for any legislator to vote against it.

57. The Defendants' Massive Fraud to "Market" an invasion of Iraq. On or about September 4, 2002, BUSH staged a photo opportunity with a bipartisan group of congressional leaders, after which he falsely and fraudulently announced that Iraq posed a serious threat to the safety of the United States and the world, while concealing from Congress and the American people the material facts that: (a) he had no reasonable basis whatsoever for his assertion; (b) he had never discussed the legitimacy of the grounds for an attack against Iraq with anyone; (c) he had never extensively reviewed existing intelligence regarding any possible threat from Iraq; (d) he had not requested an updated intelligence assessment on Iraq; (e) the United States intelligence assessment then in effect stated that Iraq had neither nuclear weapons nor a nuclear weapons program; and (f) the IC had consistently reported that Iraq had no involvement in 9/11 and no relationship with al Qaeda.

58. On September 4, 2002, BUSH also falsely and fraudulently claimed he was beginning an "open dialogue" with the American public, with Congress, and with United States allies to decide how to respond to Iraq, while concealing the material facts that he: (a) had requested a formal plan to invade Iraq nearly a year before; (b) had been conducting significant military and nonmilitary planning and attacks against Iraq for a year; (c) had directed significant military deployment to areas around Iraq; (d) was planning a massive air assault against Iraq's air defense facility for the next day; and (e) intended to work with the UN only to create a justification to use military force against Iraq.

59. Thereafter, the defendants and WHIG executed a calculated and wide-ranging strategy to deceive Congress and the American people by making hundreds of false and fraudulent representations that were only half-true, or literally true but misleading; by concealing material facts; and by making statements without a reasonable basis and with reckless indifference to their truth, regarding, among other things:

(a) their true intent to invade Iraq;
(b) the extent of military buildup and force used against Iraq without notice to or approval by Congress;
(c) their true purpose in seeking a Congressional resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq;
(d) their true intent to use their involvement in seeking a UN resolution requiring Iraq to cooperate with weapons inspectors as a sham; and
(e) their claimed justifications for invading Iraq, including but not limited to:
* The alleged connection between Saddam Hussein and the attacks of September 11, 2001;
* The alleged connection between Iraq and al Qaeda;
* The alleged connection between Saddam Hussein and any terrorists whose primary animus was directed towards the United States;
* Saddam Hussein's alleged intent to attack the United States in any way;
* Saddam Hussein's possession of nuclear weapons and the status of any alleged ongoing nuclear weapons programs;
* The lack of any reasonable basis for asserting with certainty that Saddam Hussein was actively manufacturing chemical and biological weapons; and
*The alleged urgency of any threat posed to the United States by Saddam Hussein.

60. Congressional Joint Resolution to Authorize Use of Force Against Iraq. As a result of the defendants' false and fraudulent "marketing" of the President's plan to invade Iraq, on October 11, 2002, the U.S Congress, acting pursuant to its Article I constitutional authority to oversee and authorize use of military force, passed a Congressional Joint Resolution to Authorize Use of Force Against Iraq ["the Resolution"] which stated:
The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--(a) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and(b) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

61. The Resolution required the President to, either before or within 48 hours after exercising the authority to use force, make available to the Senate and the House of Representatives his determination that:
(a) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (1) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (2) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(b) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

62. The Resolution also required the President to, at least every 60 days, present Congress a report on "matters relevant to this joint resolution."

63. In furtherance of the above-described conspiracy, the defendants and their coconspirators committed and caused to be committed the following overt acts:

Overt Acts
A. On December 9, 2001, CHENEY announced on NBC's Meet the Press that "it was pretty well confirmed" that lead 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta had met the head of Iraqi intelligence in Prague in April 2001, which statement was, as CHENEY well knew, made without reasonable basis and with reckless disregard for the truth, because it was based on a single witness's uncorroborated allegation that had not been fully investigated by U.S. intelligence agencies.

B. On July 15, 2002, POWELL stated on Ted Koppel's Nightline: "What we have consistently said is that the President has no plan on his desk to invade Iraq at the moment, nor has one been presented to him, nor have his advisors come together to put a plan to him," which statement was deliberately false and misleading in that it deceitfully implied the President was not planning an invasion of Iraq when, as POWELL well knew, the President was close to finalizing detailed military plans for such an invasion that he had ordered months previously.

C. On August 26, 2002, CHENEY made numerous false and fraudulent statements including: "Simply stated there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us," when, as CHENEY well knew, this statement was made without reasonable basis and with reckless indifference to the truth in that the IC's then prevailing assessment was that Iraq had neither nuclear weapons nor a reconstituted nuclear weapons program.

D. On September 7, 2002, appearing publicly with Blair, BUSH claimed a recent IAEA report stated that Iraq was "six months away from developing a [nuclear] weapon" and "I don't know what more evidence we need," which statements were made without basis and with reckless indifference to the truth in that: (1) the IAEA had not even been present in Iraq since 1998; and (2) the report the IAEA did write in 1998 had concluded there was no indication that Iraq had the physical capacity to produce weapons-usable nuclear material or that it had attempted to obtain such material.

E. On September 8, 2002, on Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, RICE asserted that Saddam Hussein was acquiring aluminum tubes that were "only suited" for nuclear centrifuge use, which statement was deliberately false and fraudulent, and made with reckless indifference to the truth in that it omitted to state the following material facts: (1) the U.S. intelligence community was deeply divided about the likely use of the tubes; (2) there were at least fifteen intelligence reports written since April 2001 that cast doubt on the tubes' possible nuclear-related use; and (3) the U.S. Department of Energy nuclear weapons experts had concluded, after analyzing the tubes's specifications and the circumstances of the Iraqis' attempts to procure them, that the aluminum tubes were not well suited for nuclear centrifuge use and were more likely intended for artillery rocket production.

F. On September 8, 2002, RUMSFELD stated on Face the Nation: "Imagine a September 11th, with weapons of mass destruction. It's not three thousand, it's tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children," which statement was deliberately fraudulent and misleading in that it implied without reasonable basis and in direct contradiction to then prevailing intelligence that Saddam Hussein had no operational relationship with al Qaeda and was unlikely to provide weapons to terrorists.

G. On September 19, 2002, RUMSFELD told the Senate Armed Services Committee that "no terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people than the regime of Saddam Hussein," which statement was, as Rumsfeld well knew, made without reasonable basis and with reckless indifference to the truth in that: (1) Hussein had not acted aggressively toward the United States since his alleged attempt to assassinate President George H. W. Bush in 1993; (2) Iraq's military forces and equipment were severely debilitated because of UN sanctions imposed after the 1991 Gulf War; (3) the IC's opinion was that Iraq's sponsorship of terrorists was limited to ones whose hostility was directed toward Israel; and (4) Iran, not Iraq, was the most active state sponsor of terrorism.

H. On October 1, 2002, the defendants caused the IC's updated classified National Intelligence Estimate to be delivered to Congress just hours before the beginning of debate on the Authorization to Use Military Force. At the same time, the defendants caused an unclassified "White Paper" to be published which was false and misleading in many respects in that it failed to include qualifying language and dissents that substantially weakened their argument that Iraq posed a serious threat to the United States.

I. On October 7, 2002, in Cincinnati, Ohio, BUSH made numerous deliberately misleading statements to the nation, including stating that in comparison to Iran and North Korea, Iraq posed a uniquely serious threat, which statement BUSH well knew was false and fraudulent in that it omitted to state the material fact that a State Department representative had been informed just three days previously that North Korea had actually already produced nuclear weapons. The defendants continued to conceal this information until after Congress passed the Authorization to Use Military Force against Iraq.

J. Between September 1, 2002, and November 2, 2002, BUSH traveled the country making in excess of thirty congressional-campaign speeches in which he falsely and fraudulently asserted that Iraq was a "serious threat" which required immediate action, when as he well knew, this assertion was made without reasonable basis and with reckless indifference to the truth.

K. In his January 28, 2003 State of the Union address, BUSH announced that the "British have recently learned that Iraq was seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa" which statement was fraudulent and misleading and made with reckless disregard for the truth, in that it falsely implied that the information was true, when the CIA had advised the administration more than once that the allegation was unsupported by available intelligence.

L. In a February 5, 2003, speech to the UN, POWELL falsely implied, without reasonable basis and with reckless disregard for the truth, that, among other things: (1) those who maintained that Iraq was purchasing aluminum tubes for rockets were allied with Saddam Hussein, even though POWELL well knew that both Department of Energy nuclear weapons experts and State Department intelligence analysts had concluded that the tubes were not suited for nuclear centrifuge use; and (2) Iraq had an ongoing cooperative relationship with al Qaeda, when he well knew that no intelligence agency had reached that conclusion.

M. On March 18, 2003, BUSH sent a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate which asserted that further reliance on diplomatic and peaceful means alone would not either: (1) adequately protect United States national security against the "continuing threat posed by Iraq" or (2) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant UN Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, which statement was made without reasonable basis and with reckless indifference to the truth in that, as BUSH well knew, the U.S. intelligence community had never reported that Iraq posed an urgent threat to the United States and there was no evidence whatsoever to prove that Iraq had either the means or intent to attack the U.S. directly or indirectly. The statement was also false because, as BUSH well knew, the UN weapons inspectors had not found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and wanted to continue the inspection process bec! ause it was working well.

N. In the same March 18, 2003 letter, BUSH also represented that taking action pursuant to the Resolution was "consistent with continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001," which statement was entirely false and without reasonable basis in that, as BUSH well knew, Iraq had no involvement with al Qaeda or the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.

A TRUE BILL
[Note: This is not an actual indictment]
Assistant United States Attorney: Ladies and Gentlemen, we're going to spend the afternoon discussing the law that applies to your consideration of the indictment...
The full discussion is omitted in this excerpt, but, in brief, this is the legal question you will be deciding:
Is there probable cause to believe that the defendants used deceit, craft, trickery, dishonest means -- including lies, false pretenses, misrepresentations, deliberate omissions, half-truths, false promises, and statements made with reckless indifference to their truth -- to obstruct, impede, or interfere with Congress' lawful government function of overseeing foreign affairs, relating to the invasion of Iraq?
We'll see you all tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. Our witness tomorrow will be an FBI agent. She's from Boston, but we should be able to get by without a translator.
Have a good evening.
END OF DAY ONE

[Coming Thursday: Part 3 of United States v. George W. Bush at Tomdispatch.com - The Grand Jury Testimony]

Elizabeth de la Vega is a former federal prosecutor with more than 20 years of experience. During her tenure, she was a member of the Organized Crime Strike Force and Chief of the San Jose Branch of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California. Her pieces have appeared in the Nation Magazine, the Los Angeles Times, and Salon. She writes regularly for Tomdispatch.com. This hypothetical indictment is part of her new book, United States v. George W. Bush et al. She may be contacted at ElizabethdelaVega@Verizon.net.
Excerpted from United States v. George W. Bush et al. by Elizabeth de la Vega, published December 1, 2006 by Seven Stories Press and Tomdispatch.com.

Copyright 2006 Elizabeth de la Vega

Borat

2006-12-03T17:10:00.000+13:00

Borat is not a film that I would normally go to see but the sheer amount of advertising caught my attention. More than the normal billboard they hired extras to wash their clothes and dry them on the sculpture in Aotea Square, they Borat statues in the stores along K Road and they had the missing goat posters through Ponsonby and Uni. Nick's parents both really liked the film and so we figured it couldn't be too bad. It is. I want my brain scrubbed with lye not that I've witnessed what teabagging really means. The film would be ideal to watch as a psych or sociology student. it reminds me of Louie's comedy skit in Boock's Dare, Truth or Promise. It's one of those films where the value is not in the film but in watching the reactions of the audience. No matter how racist, offensive, embarrassing etc..., no matter how much people turned away or looked shocked they still laughed and still watched. I suppose part of it was knowing that the film was intended as a pisstake as opposed to say some of the Nazi films. It's also interesting the way that despite the feeling of shock that the film creates as you walk away you find that you can't stop thinking about it, quoting it or discussing it. The wrestling scene wasn't quite as scarring as the donkey clip at pub quiz but I wouldn't have wanted to be the editor...

If Bush were brought to trial

2006-12-02T17:51:00.000+13:00

Tomgram: Bringing Bush to court
Elizabeth de la Vega on a fraud worse than Enron

Keep in mind, I've run Tomdispatch.com for only a few years, but I've been a book editor in mainstream publishing for over 30 years. Sometime last spring, I was on the phone with former federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega talking about books she might someday write, when she suddenly said to me, "You know what I'd like to do?" When I asked what, she replied, "What I've done all my life."
"What's that," I wondered innocently enough. "I'd like to draft an indictment of President Bush and his senior aides, and present the case for prewar intelligence fraud to a grand jury, just as if it were an actual case of mine, using the evidence we already have in the public record. That's the book I'd like to do."

With those three decades of publishing experience, I never doubted that this was an idea whose time should come -- and now it has. De la Vega has drawn up that indictment -- a "hypothetical" one, she hastens to add -- convened that grand jury, and held seven days of testimony. Yes, it's a grand jury directly out of her fertile brain and the federal agents who testify are fictional, but all the facts are true. She understands the case against the Bush administration down to the last detail; and she's produced, to my mind, the book of the post-election, investigative season: United States v. George W. Bush et al.

It's a Tomdispatch.com book project, produced in conjunction with Seven Stories Press, a superb independent publisher, and officially published on December 1st. I think it's simply sensational. It makes a "slam dunk" case for the way we were defrauded into war; despite the grim subject matter, it's a beautifully designed little book, a pleasure to hold in your hand; and, because de la Vega is a natural as a writer, it's also thoroughly enjoyable reading. With genuine pride, I'll be turning the Tomdispatch.com website over to excerpts from the book this week, beginning with the posting of De la Vega's introduction on the Enronization of American foreign policy today. The actual "indictment" will be posted on Wednesday; the first day of grand jury testimony on Thursday.

I assure you, this is must-read event; no less important, this is a must-buy book that must be given over the holiday season to friends, relatives, those who politically disagree with you, and even perhaps sent to Congressional representatives. Please get the investigative ball rolling by purchasing the book at Amazon.com or, if you want to give all involved a few extra cents, directly at the Seven Stories website.
Today, United States v. George W. Bush et al remains in the realm of fiction, but tomorrow, if you lend a hand… who knows? Tom

A Fraud Worse than Enron
By Elizabeth de la Vega

Elizabeth de la Vega, appearing on behalf of the United States. That is a phrase I've uttered hundreds of times in twenty years as a federal prosecutor. I retired two years ago. So, obviously, I do not now speak for any U.S. Attorney's Office, nor do I represent the federal government. This should be apparent from the fact that I am proposing a hypothetical indictment of the President and his senior advisers -- not a smart move for any federal employee who wishes to remain employed. Lest anyone miss the import of this paragraph, let me emphasize that it is a DISCLAIMER: I am writing as a private citizen.

Obviously, as a private citizen, I cannot simply draft and file an indictment. Nor can I convene a grand jury. Instead, in the following pages I intend to present a hypothetical indictment to a hypothetical grand jury. The defendants are President George W. Bush, Vice President Richard Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and former Secretary of State Colin Powell. The crime is tricking the nation into war--in legal terms, conspiracy to defraud the United States. And all of you are invited to join the grand jury.

We will meet for seven days. On day one, I'll present the indictment in the morning and in the afternoon I will explain the applicable law. On days two through seven, we'll have witness testimony, presented in transcript form, with exhibits.

As is the practice in most grand jury presentations, the evidence will be presented in summary form, by federal agents -- except that these agents are hypothetical. (Any relationship to actual federal agents, living or deceased, is purely coincidental.)

On day seven, when the testimony is complete, I'll leave the room to allow the grand jury to vote. If the indictment and grand jury are hypothetical, the evidence is not. I've prepared for this case, just as I would have done for any other case in my years as a prosecutor, by reviewing all of the available relevant information. In this case, such information consists of witness accounts, the defendants' speeches, public remarks, White House press briefings, interviews, congressional testimony, official documents, all public intelligence reports, and various summaries of intelligence, such as in the reports of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the 9/11 Commission. I've discarded any evidence, however compelling, that is uncorroborated.

Then, using a sophisticated system of documents piled on every surface in my dining room, I've organized and analyzed the reliable information chronologically, by topic, and by defendant. I've compared what the President and his advisers have said publicly to what they knew and said behind the scenes. Finally, I've presented the case through testimony that will, I hope, make sense and keep everybody awake.
After analyzing this evidence in light of the applicable law, I've determined that we already have more than enough information to allow a reasonable person to conclude that the President conducted a wide-ranging effort to deceive the American people and Congress into supporting a war against Iraq. In other words, in legal terms, there is probable cause to believe that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Powell violated Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, which prohibits conspiracies to defraud the United States. Probable cause is the standard of proof required for a grand jury to return an indictment. Consequently, we have more than sufficient evidence to warrant indictment of the President and his advisers.

Do I expect someone to promptly indict the President and his aides? No. I am aware of the political impediments and constitutional issues relating to the indictment of a sitting president. Do those impediments make this merely an empty exercise? Absolutely not.

I believe this presentation adds a singular perspective to the debate about the President's use of prewar intelligence: that of an experienced federal prosecutor. Certainly, scholars and experts such as Barbara Olshansky, David Lindorff, Michael Ratner, John Dean, and Elizabeth Holtzman have written brilliantly about the legal grounds for impeachment that arise from the President's misrepresentations about the grounds for an unprovoked invasion of Iraq. But for most Americans, the debate about White House officials' responsibility for false preinvasion statements remains fixed on, and polarized around, the wrong question: Did the President and his team lie about the grounds for war? For many, the suggestion that the President lied is heresy, more shocking than a Baptist minister announcing during vespers that he's a cross-dresser. For many others -- indeed, now the majority of Americans -- that the President lied to get his war is a given, although no less shocking.

So my goals are threefold. First, I want to explain that under the law that governs charges of conspiracy to defraud, the legal question is not whether the President lied. The question is not whether the President subjectively believed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The legal question that must be answered is far more comprehensive: Did the President and his team defraud the country? After swearing to uphold the law of the land, did our highest government officials employ the universal techniques of fraudsters -- deliberate concealment, misrepresentations, false pretenses, half-truths -- to deceive Congress and the American people?

My second goal is to supplement the scholarly analyses already written, by moving beyond exposition, beyond theory, to the inside of the courtroom, or more precisely, the grand jury room. By presenting the President's conspiracy to defraud just as a prosecutor would present any fraud conspiracy, I hope to enable readers to consider the case in an uncharged atmosphere, applying criminal law to the evidence that they believe has been proved to the standard of probable cause, just as grand jurors would in any other case.
Why is it important to do this? Because whether the President and his senior officials conspired to defraud the United States about the grounds for war is, at least on one level, a legal question, but, without a shift in political will, there will never be any reasoned consideration of it as such. The President will not be held accountable for misrepresenting the prewar intelligence unless and until Congress conducts hearings similar to the Watergate hearings. As yet, however, we seem painfully incapable of reaching that point. We are like inept tennis partners, collectively letting the ball slip by in the no-man's-land between the service line and the baseline, or in this case, between the legal and the political.

Perhaps more important, however, is that, although the evidence of wrongdoing is overwhelming, the facts are so complicated -- far more so than those that prompted the Watergate hearings--that it's impossible to have a productive debate about them in the political sphere. Indeed, modern-day spin has vanquished substance so thoroughly that even the most well-grounded charge of deliberate deception is often considered more despicable than the deception itself.

One forum where that's not true is the courtroom. The court system is far from perfect, but there we at least expect that people will not substitute personal attacks for argument. We expect a reasoned exploration of fact versus fiction, honest mistake versus deliberate fraud. We also expect, and the law requires, that people hear all the evidence before deciding, thereby avoiding the rapid volley of sound bites that so regularly masquerades for debate on television. Hence, this hypothetical grand jury presentation: it is a vehicle to deliver a message.

My third goal is to send the message home -- to whomever will listen. And this is it: The President has committed fraud. It is a crime in the legal, not merely the colloquial, sense. It is far worse than Enron. It is not a victimless crime. We cannot shrug our shoulders and walk away. Why? Because We Are All Kitty Genovese's Neighbors As an Assistant U. S. Attorney in Minneapolis, a member of the Organized Crime Strike Force in San Jose, and Chief of the San Jose Branch U.S. Attorney's Office, I prosecuted all manner of criminal cases. There were bank embezzlements, government frauds, violent takeover robberies, piloting a commercial passenger flight while under the influence--the pilot had had twenty rum and (diet) Cokes and four hours' sleep before takeoff--and investment frauds, to name a few. Most were interesting; some downright loopy. One hapless fellow, for example, stole a truck filled with frozen turkeys and drove it across state lines to Wisconsin, thereby landing himself in federal prison rather than in county jail. For good measure, the following week -- before he'd been apprehended for the frozen-turkey heist -- he stole a truck filled with packaged frozen broccoli and drove it to Iowa.

Unquestionably, though, the most compelling cases were those that involved victims -- of violent crimes, robberies, or fraud. So I was not surprised to hear the lead Enron prosecutor's comment after the jury convicted former Enron CEOs Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling: "What inspired me," John Hueston said, "was just that, that I had spoken to so many employees, so many victims who lost their savings, people who pleaded with me and the other prosecutors to see justice done."

Thanks to Hueston and his team, the victims of the Enron fraud -- a $68 billion dollar crime that left 20,000 people without jobs, pensions, and life's savings -- have obtained some measure of justice. They will never be made whole, but at least the CEOs who orchestrated the fraud have been held accountable. In the case of the largest corporate fraud ever prosecuted in the United States, the system has worked, albeit imperfectly.
Thus far, however, in the case of the vastly broader and more devastating Iraq war fraud orchestrated by the CEO of the United States and his management team, the system has failed. And we are all victims of this fraud. George W. Bush exploited the vulnerability of an entire populace reeling from the September 11, 2001, attacks to manipulate them into supporting a war based on false pretenses. If the financial cost of the President's fraud is astronomical -- $340 billion in direct war costs alone as of August 2006 -- the human cost is incalculable, and far more profound: over 2,500 American soldiers killed and 19,000 wounded; possibly many more than 50,000 Iraqis killed; untold numbers of grieving Iraqi and American family members; hundreds of thousands of Iraqis homeless; and a million soldiers who have been sent to this war and will never be the same.

While we are all victims of the President's crime, we are also all bystanders. The crime is ongoing, happening right before our eyes, and we are all onlookers; we are all, in a sense, Kitty Genovese's neighbors.
As Malcolm Gladwell recounts in his book The Tipping Point, Kitty Genovese was viciously assaulted, stabbed three times, and finally killed, on the way to her Queens, New York, home one night in 1964. Thirty-eight neighbors heard or watched her ordeal, but no one called the police until the attack was essentially over. The murder was universally seen as a horrifying example of modern-day indifference to the plight of others. But, Gladwell explains, psychologists Bibb Latane and John Darley conducted experiments that led to a far different explanation: "When people are in a group . . . responsibility for acting is diffused. They assume that someone else will make the call, or they assume that because no one else is acting, the apparent problem . . . is not really a problem." Ironically, then, it was not that no one called to help Kitty Genovese "despite the fact that thirty-eight people heard her scream; it's that no one called because thirty-eight people heard her scream."

For over a year now, polls have shown that the majority of Americans believe President Bush deliberately misrepresented prewar intelligence. Executive branch officials who deliberately mislead Congress and the public intending to influence congressional action have committed a federal crime. That means that roughly 100 million Americans believe Bush has committed a crime, yet most, like Kitty Genovese's neighbors, are just passive bystanders--although not, I believe, due to indifference.
Indeed, many of us are just watching it happen because we feel powerless to stop it. Hundreds of thousands of people have, in effect, called 911, but not even Democrats in Congress have been willing to answer the phone. It is not that they don't have enough information; it is, our Democratic representatives say, because it is not good political strategy.

The proposition that it is not good political strategy to insist that government officials obey the law is highly debatable. More important, strategizing in the face of an ongoing crime is wrong. Ask any legislator whether he would strategize about possible political fallout before intervening to stop a crime that was occurring in front of his eyes and the response would be, "Of course not." But that is exactly what's happening right now.
So, consider this my 911 call. I'm calling on Democrats and Republicans to do the right thing. And I'm calling on everyone else to do whatever you can to convince Congress to do the right thing. I am not talking about bringing people to justice in the vengeful sense that President Bush employs. I am talking about effecting justice. I am talking, finally, about holding our highest government officials accountable for a complex and calculated program of false pretense, misleading statements, and material omissions -- a criminal betrayal of trust that is strikingly similar to, yet far worse than, the fraud committed by Enron's top officials.
Enron: Misleading Statements and Material Omissions In July of 2002, President Bush stood before a snappy blue-and-white banner marked "Corporate Responsibility" and announced that he was opposed to fraud. With the enactment of the new Corporate Corruption Act, the President declared, there would "not be a different ethical standard for corporate America than the standard that applies to everyone else. The honesty you expect in your small businesses, or in your workplace . . . will be expected and enforced in every corporate suite in this country." CEOs would now have to personally vouch for the truth of their public statements.
Bush's speech announcing a higher standard for CEOs was itself misleading. Hearing it, one might easily conclude that if the President hadn't pushed for this new law, corporate officers would be legally entitled to lie, cheat, and steal. Not true, of course. The new law, also called the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, did not suddenly, for the first time in United States history, require corporate officials to be truthful, forthright, and fair with the public. Such obligations have been inherent in criminal fraud and other statutes for years.
Indeed, the Enron prosecution did not involve the Sarbanes-Oxley Act at all. The main charge was conspiracy to defraud: that is, conspiring to deceive investors by manipulating financial data, making false and misleading statements, and deliberately omitting important facts, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.

Manipulation of data, false and misleading statements, and material omissions -- sound familiar? At trial, former Enron CEOs Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling claimed they were not responsible for the deception because they had no idea what their underlings were doing. As the jury was instructed, however, anyone who makes representations intending that the public will rely on them, has an affirmative obligation to make sure that they are true and accurate. Representations made with reckless indifference to their truth are as false as outright lies.

After four months of complex testimony, the jury reached a simple conclusion: Lay and Skilling were responsible for what went on in their company. As school principal Freddie Delgado put it: "I can't say that I don't know what my teachers were doing in the classroom. I am still responsible if a child gets lost."
In other words, the Enron jurors concluded that, legally, the desks of CEOs Lay and Skilling were the final repositories of the proverbial buck. Those jurors were average Americans -- office workers, educators, engineers, a nurse -- and they knew, even without the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, that CEOs should be held to the same standards of honesty and accountability that they would apply to themselves in their own lives. Faced with evidence that Lay and Skilling had repeatedly made public statements that were seriously undermined, if not flatly contradicted, by information and warnings they had received behind the scenes, the jury refused to allow them to avoid responsibility by blaming their subordinates.

Iraq: Misleading Statements and Material Omissions The techniques of deception used by George W. Bush and his aides are identical to those used by Lay and Skilling. In his July 2002 speech announcing the signing of the Corporate Corruption Bill, the President said, "The only fair risks are [those] based on honest information." The President and his top advisers were acutely aware of the solemn risks posed by an invasion of Iraq, but instead of debating those risks honestly, they developed slogans, including the familiar "risks of inaction are greater than the risks of action" that simultaneously usurped and deflected counterarguments while providing no information whatsoever, honest or otherwise.

Such propaganda, cynical and craven as it is, might not qualify as criminal fraud, but the propaganda alone was insufficient to convince Congress and the American people to invest in the plan for war. To remedy this deficiency and close the deal, the President and his top aides made hundreds of representations, both general and specific, that were carefully crafted to manipulate public opinion. As we now know, many of those assertions were false and misleading. More important, we also now know that President Bush and his advisers had notice and direct knowledge that their representations were seriously undermined and in some key instances, disproved by information that was available to them. Consistently, the President and his aides knowingly conveyed false impressions, concealed important information, made deliberate misrepresentations, and professed certainty about facts that were speculative at best. Such is the definition of criminal fraud -- whether committed by the President of the United States or the CEO of a major corporation.
The only difference between the fraud committed by the Enron officers and the fraud committed by the President is that the latter was far more comprehensive and far more calculated. Even as President Bush stood center stage endorsing honesty that July four years ago, he and his company were setting the stage for another show. If the "only fair risks" speech was a perky Frank Capra clip, the White House's next production would be twenty-first-century H.G. Wells.

As of July 30, 2002, Bush had directed the creation of the White House Iraq Group, a public-relations operation whose sole purpose was to market the war. This team, collectively called WHIG, was co-chaired by the President's closest aides and long-term political consultants, Senior Adviser Karl Rove -- whom Bush has described as "the architect" of his 2004 reelection campaign--and former Counselor to the President Karen Hughes.

By July 30, 2002, the White House Iraq Group had already begun fabricating an ominous scenario that blurred together the September 11 tragedy, mushroom clouds rising over American cities, and terrorists releasing strains of smallpox, interspersed with the shadowy face of a mad Iraqi dictator spring-loaded to attack the United States. They were collecting props--anthrax vials and undated photos showing centrifuge components and unidentifiable buildings where something ominous might be happening, but we can't afford to wait to find out. They were writing the script: power phrases like "Grave and gathering danger" and "We can't afford to let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud," designed less to inform than to inflame. And, finally, Rove, Hughes, and company were scheduling appearances for the President's War Council members that would begin just a month later, in early September 2002.

It was to be a bravura performance by the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, the National Security Adviser, and many supporting cast members. The production was so well done, in fact, that, like the radio audience terrified into hysteria by the infamous "War of the Worlds" broadcast of 1938, most of us were fooled. Admittedly, we resisted buying the duct tape and plastic sheeting; we may not have wrapped our heads in wet towels to ward off Martian gas like the 1938 radio audience. What happened, however, was much worse: because of Bush's fiction, we agreed to bomb people 8,000 miles away whose only "crime" was that they were oppressed by a violent and cruel dictator.

Undoubtedly, Americans were panicked by H. G. Wells's radio play in part because they were exhausted and nervous in those tough Depression years. But Orson Welles' breathless report of a Martian invasion was never intended to cause panic, nor was it ultimately harmful.

The President's elaborate production was, and still remains, an entirely different story. It was a deliberate effort to create a permanent state of fear in America. And to say it was harmful is like saying that it hurts to get hit by a Mack truck.

Federal sentencing guidelines recognize that one who defrauds a vulnerable victim, such as a salesman who falsely represents the curative benefits of an elixir to a cancer patient, has committed an even more serious crime than one who defrauds a person who is not so "particularly susceptible." The President knew that Americans were "particularly susceptible" in 2002. We were exhausted, and justifiably terrified, not only because of September 11 but also because of the anthrax murders and the random Washington, DC, sniper killings that coincided with the Bush-Cheney administration's push for war.

President Bush and his White House Iraq Group did not merely exploit this fear; they magnified it. Worse yet, the President was the very person upon whom the public relied to protect it from danger and, one would hope, from omnipresent fear itself. Having used the authority of the Oval Office to make people more afraid, having created an even darker backdrop of fear, our highest officials exploited that reliance and the trust they enjoyed by virtue of their positions to sell something they knew the American public would not otherwise have bought. It was as if the cancer victim's trusted personal physician had convinced him that his disease was more advanced than it really was, and then used the same fraudulently heightened fear to manipulate him into buying a bogus cure-all.

In the language of criminal law, the President and his senior advisers have abused a position of trust to defraud the most vulnerable of victims. How would such a case be presented for prosecution? I invite you into the grand jury room to observe:

Ladies and Gentlemen, tomorrow begins our presentation in the case of United States v. George W. Bush et al. Please remember that you must decide the case based solely on the evidence that's presented and the applicable law, without regard to prejudice or sympathy. In other words, your politics, and any personal feelings you have toward the defendants -- positive or negative -- should have no bearing on your deliberations.

I will begin by passing out the indictment, so don't forget your reading glasses . . . [Coming Wednesday: Part 2 of United States v. George W. Bush at Tomdispatch.com -- the indictment of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, and Colin Powell.]

Elizabeth de la Vega is a former federal prosecutor with more than 20 years of experience. During her tenure, she was a member of the Organized Crime Strike Force and Chief of the San Jose Branch of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California. Her pieces have appeared in the Nation Magazine, the Los Angeles Times, and Salon. She writes regularly for Tomdispatch. This is the introduction to her new book, United States v. George W. Bush et al. She may be contacted at ElizabethdelaVega@Verizon.net.

Excerpted from United States v. George W. Bush et al. by Elizabeth de la Vega, published December 1, 2006 by Seven Stories Press and Tomdispatch.com.

Copyright 2006 Elizabeth de la Vega

The Marquee Scandal

2006-11-23T19:06:00.000+13:00

This is what I got about a week ago (at the end of a long list of forwards). Below the emails I've published the aftermath...

From: Paula Brosnahan
Sent: Thursday, 16 November 2006 11:57 AM
To: Georgina Hall; Catherine Somerville; Cameron Law; Vernon Rive
Subject: FW: Thank You From The Great Marquee Company

Check this out ... Steve's email may have been a little harsh, but really!!!! We're thinking we'll forward the email to Bride and Groom magazine!

From: Steve Hausman [mailto:steve@buildtrust.co.nz]
Sent: Thursday, 16 November 2006 11:39 AM
To: Paula Brosnahan
Subject: FW: Thank You From The Great Marquee Company
Well I did not think my email was that bad? But I could very easily get on the telephone and sort this cow out! But why bother.
Love you

-----Original Message-----From: Events Team [mailto:events.team@thegreatmarqueecompany.co.nz]
Sent: Wednesday, 15 November 2006 6:30 p.m.
To: Steve Hausman
Subject: Thank You From The Great Marquee Company
Hi Steve,
Thanks for your reply. Your wedding sounded cheap, nasty and tacky anyway, so we only ever considered you time wasters. Our marquees are for upper class clients which unfortunately you are not. Why don't you stay within your class level and buy something from payless plastics instead.

Kindest Regards
Katrina
Office Manager
The Great Marquee Company

----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Hausman
To: 'Events Team'
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 4:06 PM
Subject: RE: Quote #00002417; from The Great Marquee Company Ltd.
Hi Klaus
Paula and I went and viewed your marquee setup at Devonport the other weekend and unfortunately we did not like it. So this is just to let you know we will not require your services on 7 April 2007.Thanks for your assistance and we are sorry that it turned out this way although we are glad we looked at the marquee prior to booking as that would have been a huge disappointment.

Regards
Steve Hausman

-----Original Message-----
From: Events Team [mailto:events.team@thegreatmarqueecompany.co.nz]
Sent: Monday, 2 October 2006 6:08 p.m.To: Steve HausmanSubject: Re: Quote #00002417; from The Great Marquee Company Ltd.
Hi Steve,
This email is confidential. If it is not intended for you please do not read, distribute or copy it or any attachments. Please notify the sender by return email and delete the original message and any attachments.Any views expressed in this email may be those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of Auckland City Council.
______________________________________________________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
______________________________________________________________
(on their website)

Statement
This is not the view of The Great Marquee Company
If you are emailing us or visiting our website because of the recent (inappropriate) email communication between a customer and one of our staff.
We would like to advise that we regret the exchange. We have apologised to the customer concerned and this staff member's contract has been terminated and processes has been put in place to ensure it won't happen again.
We most certainly do not condone rudeness on the part of any of our staff or endorse the views in this particular response. With a long history in Auckland of supporting events with our marquee hire, we know that planning a wedding is one of the most stressful times in a person's life and we do what we can to make it easy.
You may be aware that the email that was forwarded by our customer has now reached some thousands of people. We do not believe it is fairly representative of the service that we usually provide, and perhaps more importantly it is generating many calls to the former customer which is stressful for him.

We would rather not comment any further but move on having learned from this situation. Again, we pass our apologies on to this customer.
Klaus Jorgensen
CEO
The Great Marquee Company

_____________________________________________________________________
'Cheap and tacky' wedding email that went global
Sunday November 19, 2006
By Jonathan Marshall

A marquee company has apologised to a bride-to-be and her fiance after an employee sent them an abusive email describing their wedding plans as "cheap, nasty and tacky". The firm also claimed the couple was not suitable for their marquees, which were intended for "upper class clients" and advised them to goto budget firm Payless Plastics instead. Now, the shame-faced owners have apologised after the rude email went global. Thousands of Kiwis received the marquee email, and bridal message boards worldwide carried copies of the exchange. The marquee company's CEO, Klaus Jorgensen, said he had sacked the employee responsible - who turned out to be his wife Katrina, and she in turn said she was feeling "suicidal" because of the furore her email had caused.

Lawyer Paula Brosnahan, 33, and her fiance Steve Hausman, 36, who will marry in April next year, sought a quote from The Great Marquee Company for their Whangaparaoa cliff-top wedding. They viewed photos on the company's website and arranged an appointment to inspect a marquee in Devonport. But when the Mt Albert couple decided the marquee would not be suitable and sent a polite email to the company saying they would look elsewhere, they were shocked to receive a reply from the firm sayingtheir wedding wasn't posh enough for its tents. The couple, who met 17 years ago, had written a polite letter saying: "Paula and I went and viewed your marquee setup at Devonport ...unfortunately we did not like it ... thanks for your assistance and we are sorry that it turned out this way." Two hours later the firm's office manager, Katrina Jorgensen, replied to the couple: "Your wedding sounded cheap, nasty and tacky anyway, so
we only ever considered you time wasters. Our marquees are for upperclass clients which unfortunately you are not. Why don't you stay within your class levels and buy something from Payless Plastics instead."

Brosnahan told the Herald on Sunday that their wedding was far from a frugal affair. "We are spending $30,000 on this day, they don't know anything about our wedding so I can't see how they can label it cheap," said Brosnahan, who is a Resource Management Act specialist for law giant Chapman Tripp. She is currently acting for the Eden Park Trust Board in the stadium debate. Her fiance Steve Hausman, a builder, said he was appalled by thecompany's email and hurt by the remarks. "We have had all sorts of dramas and we didn't need this, I just got fired up. I am blown awayand have forwarded the email on ... it has ended up going to about 400people." Brosnahan said she sent the email to a Chapman Tripp colleague and asked him not to send it on. He replied: "It is too late." Company director Klaus Jorgensen said in a statement: "The Great Marquee Company is extremely sorry that one of our employees chose to enter into a highly inappropriate exchange of emails with a potential customer. The emails were not sent with the knowledge of the CEO nor does the company endorse or stand behind them." Klaus said he has "sacked" the company's office manager Katrina, who is his wife.

Katrina Jorgensen contacted the Herald on Sunday and said: "I'm suicidal ... I just don't know what to do. I am so apologetic and just want to say sorry to everyone." The New Zealand president of the Exhibition and Event Association of Australasia - of which The Great Marquee Company is a member - said the company's membership was in jeopardy. Dona White said the email exchange would be tabled at a committee meeting on Tuesday. "This is highly inappropriate and really quite bizarre, it is completelyunprofessional and they should not be involved in our organisation."

Lesley Walker, editor of Bride and Groom magazine, labelled the emailcommunication as "strange". "Their marquees are good, but their PR isn't."In the meantime, the couple has booked another marquee for $8000.http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10411458

Don Brash resigns as Party leader

2006-11-23T19:03:00.000+13:00

[Wise man to step down before being pushed.]

Speaking notes for media conference
23 November 2006 - 13:00 - Dr Don Brash
Party Leader

Today I want to make two announcements.
The first is about my own position as Leader of the National Party.
As most of you will recall, I let it be known before the election last year that, should National lose the election, I expected to step down as Leader – or be asked to do so!
In fact, I prepared my election night comments on the basis that, if we didn't win, I would announce my resignation.
In the event of course, we didn't win, but we achieved a better result than any of the commentators expected six months before the election, and indeed a better result than National had achieved in any election since 1990.
On Election Day itself, I was urged by my closest advisors to stay on as Leader in the interests of the Party, and subsequently by both the caucus and the wider National Party.
But it has become increasingly clear in recent months that there's a growing expectation that I'll step down well ahead of the next election.
That ongoing speculation is damaging to the National Party, and to our future prospects.
Accordingly, as we approach the end of the Parliamentary year, I've decided to resign as Leader with effect from a special caucus meeting which I'll call for early next week.
I believe the Party is in very good heart, with a highly experienced and determined caucus, and an organisation outside Parliament which is in better shape than for many years.
Polls vary, but on average they show National leading Labour by some 6 to 8%, with the Colmar Brunton poll showing us at 49%, ahead by 13%.
For some weeks now, I've been giving consideration to the right time, and the right way, to announce this decision.
I've held off because I've been very keen to have two untidy matters dealt with before my departure.
The first was the GST error made by the Party in the election campaign last year. Although this had nothing to do with me personally, it was a source of embarrassment and I was very keen that a solution be found before my resignation. The National Party Board agreed the best solution we can find yesterday, and that's already been announced.
The second was the matter of the emails stolen from my computer system.
As you all know, there were a number of emails to or from me leaked to the "Sunday Star Times" and other media during the election campaign. We took no formal action on these leaks, accepting that leaks occasionally happen, either accidentally or deliberately.
After the election, Winston Peters talked about having "telephone books" of my emails, but offered no proof of that fact. He eventually produced one more email and an attachment in the House.
We commissioned a formal investigation to see if we could discover the source of these emails, but found nothing.
In recent weeks, Helen Clark and Michael Cullen have both made knowing comments about the imminent publication of my emails, and suggested they would implicate me.
We've also seen articles in both the "New Zealand Herald" and "North and South", talking about the imminent publication of a "book" of my emails.
In September, we asked the police to investigate what seemed to us at the time – and still seems – to have been criminal activity in accessing my computer system. This police investigation is ongoing.
In early November, I decided that the publication of a "book" of emails to and from me would be totally unfair to the many hundreds of people who correspond with me by email, and would potentially hinder my ability to operate as a Member of Parliament and as the Leader of the National Party. Such people, from all parts of New Zealand and from all walks of life, should reasonably expect their correspondence with me to be private.
And so I sought and obtained an interim injunction to prevent a book of those stolen emails being published. I felt, and still feel, there's an important issue of principle here.
Great was my surprise when, two days ago, what got caught by the injunction was not a book of my emails, but a scurrilous book by Nicky Hager attacking both the National Party as an institution and me personally.
Unlike Helen Clark, Michael Cullen and, I suspect, Winston Peters, I had no knowledge that such a book was under preparation, and consequently Mr Hager's book was not the target of the injunction. But publication of that book has been stopped by the injunction.
I utterly reject Mr Hager's conspiracy view of the world, and recall Helen Clark's comment on Mr Hager's recent attack on the SIS as "a work of fiction".
From what little I've learnt about the contents of Mr Hager's book from media comment, I utterly reject also his latest attempt to discredit the National Party and me. It's simply nonsense to suggest that the National Party was, or is, under the influence of American neoconservatives; or received funding from the Exclusive Brethren; or broke election spending rules – the only party found to have broken the election spending cap was the Labour Party.
But, to paraphrase the words of Voltaire, though I utterly reject Mr Hager's view of the National Party and of me, I defend his right to hold those views, and to publicise them.
So this is my second announcement.
Over the last 24 hours I have taken legal advice about how the publication of Mr Hager's book can proceed, while continuing to restrain the ability of other people to use my stolen emails.
The court order provides that nobody in possession of my stolen emails can publish them unless I provide them to that person. I'm advised that Mr Hager can legally proceed with publishing his book if I provide him with copies of those of my emails included in the book. I'm willing to do that.
As a result of discussions I've asked my legal counsel to initiate, I anticipate that Mr Hager will be able to publish his book tomorrow morning.
Unfortunately, that will not protect the identity of people who have sent me emails, and on the assumption that Mr Hager has not obtained their permission to publish their emails, I regard his behaviour as totally reprehensible. It will certainly tend to inhibit the ability of the public to communicate frankly with Members of Parliament.
The announcement of Mr Hager's book almost caused me to defer my resignation as Leader. I deeply resent the lies and distortions which seem to have been included in his book, and I intend to vigorously contest those allegations.
But I can do that just as effectively having stepped down as Leader, and that I will do with effect from the special caucus meeting, probably on Monday.
Over the past three years, it has been a great honour to be the 10th Leader of the National Party, and I take a great deal of satisfaction at the progress we've made over that time.
I want to thank all those who've helped me – the President and Board of the Party, the thousands of volunteers all over the country, my Parliamentary colleagues, most of whom have been unswervingly loyal to the National Party and to me, and my staff.
In that regard, and at the risk of failing to mention a whole host of others, including media staff, communications staff, research staff, IT staff, and others, I should make special mention of my chief of staff, initially Richard Long and now Wayne Eagleson; my special assistant over the two years prior to the election, Bryan Sinclair; the campaign director, Steven Joyce; the man who master-minded our billboards and advertising, John Ansell; my two senior press secretaries, Jason Ede and Kevin Taylor; those who helped me in the preparation of Parliamentary questions, Phil de Joux and Sarah Boyle; and my loyal secretary, Anne Small.
And of course a special thanks to my wife Je Lan and family, who've put up with a huge amount since I entered politics more than four years ago, and have supported me loyally through it all.
There's still an enormous amount to achieve if we're to give New Zealand the future we all want for our children and grandchildren, and I look forward to wishing the next Leader, whomever he or she may be, every success.
I have no doubt that, after the next election, New Zealand will have the National-led Government we need and deserve.
It is, of course, quite possible that I will play some part in that Government. That's a matter to be resolved in due course between the next Leader of the National Party, my wife and family, and me.

Recent Happenings :)

2006-11-22T23:20:00.000+13:00

It's the lull before the storm I suppose. The tean at work, from what I've gathered, has slowly grown over the last month or two (and by grown still think very, very small) and then has had three people added in the last fortnight. Seven or so more are due to start in the next month. At the moment, however, there seems to be a lack of work. Part of that, I suppose, may be because the manager is away on holiday for a fortnight and probably has a number of things that she wants done but hasn't necessarily left instructions for them. There's supposed to be a huge data project starting as one software system gets phased out and a new one comes in (with a lot of the initial data transfer being done by hand) but we're not too sure exactly when that starts.... When it does I imagine there'll be a seemingly endless stream of work (or at least the job offer runs through to next June although I'll be leaving far earlier for my course) but right now I'm trying to work out if I can nap properly with my eyes open.....

Nick & I went down to his family's bach, in the Coromandel, for three days this weekend. It was absolute bliss. The weather wasn't great, it was better last time we went down - in May, but the company was and it was cosy and lovely and wonderfully relaxing. We managed to watch an entire season of House (Season 1) in one weekend! I do love Hugh Laurie playing cantankerous and sarcastic. Nick's right that the episodes are fairly formulaic but we couledn't help staying up for just one more, and then another, and then maybe another one until it was 3am and common sense suggested that perhapsit would be wise to get some sleep while the sun was down. Part of the reason it works is because you do get attached to the characters and you want to see Mr Big get taken down (not his real name but he reminded me of the Bond villain), or see Chase get punished, or see if House and Cameron can possibly get it on. We're already eyeing up Season 2.... I'm starting him on Twin Peaks first... I love Twin Peaks. I started watching it in one of the screening rooms, deep down below the Arts Dept in the AV Room, with James and Conan in my first or second year of University. Conan had seen it all before while James & I were T.P. virgins and would thus theorize endlessly while seeing what reaction we could get from Conan. And thinking about pie. It's hard not to watch several hours of T.P. in a row and not suddenly realize that pie really does sound good (though I'm not sure how keen I am on cherry). I was trying to work out why Season 1 had so few disks until I went online and realized that of course Season 1 actually finishes part-way through Season 2. It's hard not to think of them in terms of the first key story-arc and then everything that comes after it loosely revolving around the second key arc.

We spent a fair bit of time playing Sid Meyer's Pirates this weekend as well. I highly reccommend it. There don't seem to be that many decent games these days that actually have a full install and can be happily played without a disk but this is one of them. I still have a long way to go before i'm ruling the Seven Seas, so to speak, and have raised a truly fantastic Spanish bounty on my head but I'll get there. Nick's beating me at the moment in terms of fame and such not :) [competition is a wonderful thing].

One of the great things about the bach is that it's only a short drive/walk from the beach (accessed by walking through the midges, I mean forest, well, no, I mean midges...). It's beautiful down there and it felt so good to finally get in the water again. It was freezing but warming too in a bracing kind of way :)

Oh, before I forget, kudos to Nick for his two technological breakthroughs this weekend. The first was getting sound for the computer down at the bach. The stereo & speakers down there weren't compatible with the leads we had which was making watching House look problematic until he remembered that his sister had given us a converter (tape deck to presumably cd player) to try and use in the car. Didn't work in the car cause the portable cd player was broken but worked a treat with the computer :) The second was getting my dvd player working. I hate when electronics break. There's no degrading or signs of discomfort like you'd get in a biological unit, instead one minute they're working perfectly and the next they're not with no apparent reason or cause etc... It's frustrating & unfair. I'd left the room to find a screwdriver when I head an exclamation, the bad kind rather than the eureka! sort, and walked back into the room to find my man capering gleefully proclaiming that he'd broken it. Well, ok he wasn't capering but he was pretty darn happy. Breaking it further had fixed whatever was broken to begin with (looks like the drive had been knocked out of alignment or something) and now it's working perfectly, yay! So no new dvd player to pay for this week, just the car licensing instead :)

The Hobbit

2006-11-22T23:19:00.000+13:00

Peter Jackson has publically announced that he will not be directing the new film version of The Hobbit. Apparently Wingnut Productions and New Line Cinemas are in a lawsuit over the earnings from The Fellowship of the Ring and New Line have therefore contacted Jackson to say that they are actively seeking applicants for the directing role elsewhere. While it's possible that the film will still be fantastic it does suck that we won't see a Jackson version of it. I can see him making a fantastic film and one that would have the advantage of continuity with the film trilogy. Still, the Lucas prequels sucked (in my opinion, not my Dad's) so perhaps it's just as well.

Stop me if you've heard this one...

2006-11-16T20:26:00.001+13:00

Two sisters, one blonde and one brunette, inherit the family ranch. Unfortunately, after just a few years, they are in financial trouble. In order to keep the bank from repossessing the ranch, theyneed to purchase a bull so that they can breed their own stock. The brunette takes their last $600 with her to find a bull. Upon leaving, the brunette tells her sister, "When I get there,if I decide to buy the bull, I'll contact you to drive out after meand haul it home."
The brunette arrives at the man's ranch, inspects the bull, anddecides she wants to buy it. The man tells her that he will sell it for $599, no less. After paying him, she drives to the nearest town to send her sister a telegram to tell her the news. She walks into the telegraph office, and says, "I want to send atelegram to my sister telling her that I've bought a bull for our ranch. I need her to hitch the trailer to our pickup truck and drive out here so we can haul it home."
The telegraph operator explains that he'll be glad to help her, then adds,"It's just 99 cents a word."

Well, after paying for the bull, the brunette only has $1 left. She realizes that she'll only be able to send her sister one word. After a few minutes of thinking, she nods and says, "I want you to send her the word "comfortable."
The operator shakes his head.
" How is she ever going to know that you want her to hitch thetrailer to your pickup truck and drive out here to haul that bull backto your ranch if you send her just the word "comfortable?"
The brunette explains, "My sister's blonde. The word's big.
She'll read it very slowly .... com-for-da-bul."

Weather

2006-11-16T20:26:00.000+13:00

At least the weather's starting to improve, hopefully I'll even get out and about in it this weekend :) We're going away for three days and I have no AL so I'm pulling long shifts all this week. It was freaky earlier when we were getting the 150km winds; we didn't find out the wind speeds till the next day (or that Sky City had to evacuate). The winds were strong enough to make out building sway. I was feeling nauseous and swaying but couldn't work out why; I figured it was just that I'd been at work for far too long already. But then I heard someone else say 'Thank God it's not just me' and realized that everyone else was feeling it too! It's moved down to Wellington now apparently. I've been doing insurance follow-ups for the past week and I've rung one of the companies often enough that the girl on reception recognises me and stops to chat!

Work

2006-11-16T20:25:00.000+13:00

I'm back working at National Bank for another summer. I was kind of worried as I hadn't done any temping work for about 2 months - sometimes due to uni and sometimes because there were simply no phone calls... Manpower came through though and have me another job for the summer. It''ll be nice when the rest of the temps start in December for the project; I'm glad that I was able to start early though! It was good timing too, they took the floor out for dinner and drinks a couple of days after I started :)

The women's who's desk I temporarily have possession of has just had a little boy (a 2h drugs-free delivery, you should hear the good-natured jealousy in the office!). Apparently she'd been on a health/diet/gym regime for ages complaining bitterly that she was starting to get tubby. She didn't realize that she was pregnant until 6-7 months in, freaky huh!

Marks

2006-11-15T23:44:00.000+13:00

I went out with Anna to the Chocolate Boutique in Parnell to destress after all the mail (thanks hon) and that was fantastic. Then it was pretty much wrapping up the semester. My research project had to be handed in for Nazi Germany (it replaced an exam) and then there was study. Lots and lots of cramming. Thanks to Nick by the way for proof reading my essays this semester and all :)

The results so far are:
Adolescent Fiction Essay on the Representation of Women in Romantic Comedy A+
Arthurian Fiction Essay on the Quest for the Holy Grail A+
Nazi Germany Essay on WWII Propaganda A

Coursemarks History -
Nazi Germany A

Haven't heard back on the other two yet. There's the long, long wait and trying not to compulsively check NDeva every day :P

Update

2006-11-15T23:41:00.000+13:00

It's been weeks since I've updated this; I'm a slacker, I know, I'm sorry. The problem as well is that whenever I do actually have the time and inclination to post something either my crappy [but free thanks to Josh] internet connection is non-existent or Blogger isn't working. I think the weekend after I last posted was my weekend of crappy mail. I had a request for payment by the IRD, my credit card which was supposed to have been cancelled months ago sent me a statement, I'd obviously forgotten to tell my vet that Galahad had passed away, the Faculty of Education wanted me to jump through hoops and the IRD was threatening me with court over tax fraud.

Rant 1 - I've had a number of problems with the tax department over the years. When I first started doing television work (just as an extra) IRD gave me the wrong tax code and somehow projected my earnings for the following year as over $40k (up from $400) which meant ACC was demanding huge payments in advance and f**cked up their database changes every single time that I called them over the holiday season. I lost it at them about when they started getting ready to set court dates until someone finally corrected my entry in their database. Anyway, the next agency I signed up did the withholding tax for me but forgot to make the ACC payments so...more fluffing round. This year I was determined to do everything right. I'm with about 5 office recruitment agencies that get me temping work so I contacted them well in advance and told them my tax code needed to be changed to S from a certain date (due to WINZ - student allowances). They all assured me that this had been done. No worries. Until I get a letter from IRD accusing me of tax fraud! Turned out only of the companies had made the change and I'd been on the wrong tax codes for months with multiple firms.... I was so pissed off at trusting these firms and then getting into trouble for their screw-up. Thankfully after I'd explained the situation (helped that I hadn't worked in a month) and they'd checked my records IRD decided that I simply didn't earn enough for them to bother chasing me for money and let me off with a warning.

Rant 2 - ACE is now the Faculty of Education for Auckland University and you would think, therefore, that they might make an effort to actually be part of the university and operate similarly. Oh no. I have the grades and the invites by teachers to do Honours automatically next year. The English Department does a meeting every year and provides all of the information on how the post-grad courses are structured and what papers are available. Not so, FE, in fact just trying to get the enrollment guide for them required me to be transferred three times, dumped on an a/p and rung back several days later. They won't provide full course information or details on papers until after you're already enrolled~! They have what I can only assume is a general application guide. A poorly put together guide since it asks if you have an adequate understanding of English while having grammatical errors and spelling mistakes! You have to supply two 2-page references and a big write-up on yourself just to apply for the course; attend an interview and do another written test on why teaching is so great and why you should be allowed the honour of paying them a large sum of money to sit their course.... Now, don't get me wrong, I understand that we want competent teachers for our kids and if it was a free course then it would be entirely understandable. Since, however, we have to pay them around $4,000 or so in fees to sit the course and will be failed if we don't pass the assessments it annoys me no end that it's such an arduous procedure to enrol.
Oh, and I'm annoyed with them since last year (when they joined AU) they bought property in town and told me that it would be possible to sit the entire course at the city campus. This year they told me they'd sold that building but that my subject papers (and therefore half the course) would be taught in town, then at the interview I was told that the website/enrolment guide etc... are wrong and that the plan for next year is to fully retract to Epsom and be part of AU in name only. Grrr."

On the bright side, I ran into a high school mate of mine, Richard F, coming in for the interview session after mine and it would be good to see him on campus next year.

2006-11-15T23:40:00.000+13:00

London: 21st August -
A public school teacher was arrested today at Gatwick Airport as he attempted to board a flight while in possession of a ruler, a protractor, a set square, a slide rule, and a calculator. At a morning press conference, Home Secretary John Reid said he believes the man is a member of the notorious Al-gebra movement. He did not identify the man, who has been charged by the Met Police with carrying weapons of maths instruction. "Al-gebra is a problem for us," Reid said, "They desire solutions by means and extremes, and sometimes go off on tangents in a search of absolute values. They use secret code names like 'x` and `y`
and refer to themselves as `unknowns,` but we have determined they belong to a common denominator of the axis of medieval with co-ordinates in every country. As the Greek philanderer Isosceles used to say, "There are 3 sides to every triangle". When asked to comment on the arrest, Prime Minister Tony Blair, speaking from his holiday resort before the planes stopped flying, said: "If God had wanted us to have better Weapons of Math Instruction, He would have given us more fingers and toes."

Wouldn't you want to write this on a whiteboard and see how many people got it...

2006-11-15T23:39:00.000+13:00

{Chrisodeo} veni, veni, veni.
(CrazySteve) Pervert.

2006-11-14T22:46:00.000+13:00

I can't listen to that much Wagner. I start getting the urge to conquer Poland.
- Woody Allen

2006-11-02T11:40:00.000+13:00

All days are nights to see till I see thee,
And nights bright days when dreams do show thee me.
- Shakespeare, Sonnet XLIII 13-14

For the person who has everything...

2006-11-02T11:38:00.000+13:00

Rent-a-Pilgrim
Wed Nov 1, 2006 9:30am ET

By Henrique Almeida
LISBON (Reuters) - Any Roman Catholics who have vowed to make the pilgrimage to Fatima in Portugal, which is famous for religious visions, but can't fulfill their promise, help is at hand -- rent-a-pilgrim.
For 2,500 euros ($3,169), Pilgrim Gil will make the journey in your place -- and send you a certificate stamped along the way to prove he walked your every step.
Carlos Gil, 42, who owns a small computer company, took up this medieval practice four years ago when he suddenly "felt an urge to walk to Fatima" and said charging each client was simply a way to keep doing what he loves.

"I make the trip to Fatima once or twice a year because it elevates my spirit," said Gil. "Sometimes the trip is so intense that I forget I'm doing it to fulfill my client's promises."
Like a true pilgrim, Gil begins his seven-day journey to Fatima on foot from his home in Cascais, a small town on the outskirts of Lisbon, about 160 kilometers from the shrine. It takes him another six days to walk back.
Fatima's claim to fame is the Sanctuary of Fatima, built after the Virgin Mary was reported to have appeared six times to three shepherd children on a hillside near the town in 1917.
One of the children, Lucia dos Santos, became a nun after having the visions and is said to have foretold the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II in May 1981. She died in 2005 while the other two children died in 1919 and 1920.
Pope John Paul later placed one of the bullets that nearly killed him in the crown of the statue of Fatima.

Ever year about 3.5 million visitors flock to the shrine to celebrate the Virgin's appearance -- and Gil goes in the place of some of would-be pilgrims although he would not say how many people he walks for each year.
"It is a romantic way for my clients to thank God for what they have, like buying a candle or a plaster statue of Fatima," he said.
To guarantee to his clients that he made the trip on foot, Gil has a system of handing his customers a certificate after every journey with various stamps from places along the way.
"That way they know I kept their promise," he said.

He insists he makes the trips because it makes him feel good and the money he charges is used to compensate for time-off from his company and expenses along the way.
"As long as I'm not making a profit, I don't see a problem in this," he said. "It doesn't matter if you can't make the trip yourself because you are I and I am you, if you know what I mean."
Those who wish to hire Pilgrim Gil can do so through his Web site peregrino.org, which is translated into three different languages and includes a credit card payment system.

Breaking Up is suddenly easier to do...

2006-11-01T12:51:00.000+13:00

Another random gem from the pages of TIME is a review of www.dumpmonkey.com. You no longer have to stress about how to let your significant other that you are tired of them, now you can show your true colours and pay someone else to do it for you! For only US$25 you can send them a nice little certificate to inform them that they're dumped and they even get a cute wee monkey as a souvenier of their broken heart. It's free shipping within their states and they'll even call the dumpee to confirm that it's for real and not all some horrible, twisted joke. Just to rub salt in the wound, they'll even publish the names involved on their site i.e. Dumper, Dumpee, Time & Date ended, relevant state etc... It's some small consolation that the service has now become so popular they haven't had time this year to update that page...

Religious Cartoons

2006-11-01T12:46:00.000+13:00

Last week the Vatican released: John Paul II: Friend of all Humanity, so that the little kiddies can learn all about how wonderful the pope is. Apparently it's educational.

Looking far more modern and funky is a new comic-book series called The 99, by a Kuwaiti-born entrepeneur. It's based around the 99 attributes/names/faces of Allah, with each aspect being represented by a different superhero. The picture in TIME this week is of a kick-ass looking chick in cool street-wear. I'm sorry to say that spunky sass beats the Pope in terms of coolness factor.

2006-11-01T12:43:00.000+13:00

Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names.
- J.F.K.

Deep Fried Coke?

2006-10-28T13:12:00.000+13:00

Because we don't already have enough fried foods
Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:34am ET

NEW YORK, Oct 26 (Reuters Life!) - A new fast food is making its debut at U.S. fairs this fall -- fried Coke.
Abel Gonzales, 36, a computer analyst from Dallas, tried about 15 different varieties before coming up with his perfect recipe -- a batter mix made with Coca-Cola syrup, a drizzle of strawberry syrup, and some strawberries.
Balls of the batter are then deep-fried, ending up like ping-pong ball sized doughnuts which are then served in a cup, topped with Coca-Cola syrup, whipped cream, cinnamon sugar and a cherry on the top.
"It tastes great," said Sue Gooding, a spokeswoman for the State Fair of Texas where Gonzales' fried Coke made its debut this fall. "It was a huge success."
Gonzales ran two stands at the State Fair of Texas and sold up to 35,000 fried Cokes over 24 days for $4.50 each -- and won a prize for coming up with "most creative" new fair food.
Now other fairs in North Carolina and Arizona are following the trend, and other people are trying to emulate Gonzales' recipe.
Gonzales gave no indication of the calories in his creation and said he would not patent it.
"The best I can hope for is that it's the original and hopefully the best fried Coke out there," he said.
But Gonzales said the success of his fried Coke had inspired him. Next year's fair-goers can look forward to fried Sprite or -- for those watching their weight -- fried diet Coke.
"We are trying to cut a lot of the sugar out of it. It has less calories but it's still very, very sweet," he said.
Ray Crockett, a spokesman for Coca-Cola Co., said: "We're constantly amazed at the creative ways folks find to enjoy their Coke and make it part of celebrations like fairs and festivals. This is one is definitely different!"

2006-10-20T10:24:00.000+13:00

I know a bank whereon the wild thyme blows,
Where oxlips and the nodding violet grows
Quite over-canopied with luscious woodbine,
With sweet musk roses, and with eglantine.

- A Midsummer Night's Dream II.i.259-262

Coppers

2006-10-19T13:19:00.000+13:00

I was walking home from the video store the other day [side rant - why decide to stock a series and then only have the store purchase the first two discs!!?], turned the corner and just down the path were two coppers threatening what looked like one of the streetbums that hangs around the shops. I don't what the hel he was supposed to have done but they had something pulled him on him, whether it was mace or a taser I don't know. They grabbed him, slammed him against a brick wall and put handcuffs on him before one of them started searching through his bag. As I was trying to decide how to get past them and get home, without looking like a bloody rubbernecker, another police car swings up. I ended up walking down the berm so that I wouldn't get in the way - which proved wise as an undercover cop car suddenly screeches off the road and drives up the pavement! It seemed a little overzealous for one guy.... I'm left wondering now what the hell he was supposed to have done. I'm hoping he's some kind of violent offender being removed from our streets rather than someone who got hungry and shoplifted from Foodtown one time too many...

Pub Quiz

2006-10-19T13:11:00.000+13:00

We've been going along to a pub quiz for the past couple of weeks now; it's a bit of a lark and it's nice to acquire new if not necessarily applicable facts. Last week we were right at the absolute bottom of the pack and did shockingly. We were in utter shock this week therefore when we saw our team rise up to 3rd place after one of the rounds. A fluke! we told ourselves and regretted that the cellphone camera wasn't of suitable quality to capture our moment. The teams slid fluidly around each other for a few more rounds and we realized with shock that we'd made 2nd place! By the end of the quiz we'd tied for 3rd, and Gareth won the tiebreaker for us :) It's an adult pub, rather than a student one, so the prizes aren't huge but it was still fantastic to know that a) we'd placed and b) we'd had two rounds of perfect scoring :) One of which was Ben's sudden epihany about a film called 'On Golden Pond'; he'd never heard of it before, we'd never heard of it before but it was the right answer :)

Nazi Propaganda - Final History essay - yay!

2006-10-17T16:10:00.000+13:00

A wise man will build his house upon strong foundations, or, to word the proverb in a different way, a wise leader will build his political power upon strong and existing beliefs. Historians have questioned how an obscure Austrian beer-hall agitator could become the leader of a great nation and possess the support of many of the German people; others have gone on to question how Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party retained this support, genuine or assumed, first during peace and then during war.[1] Jay Baird argues that an intrinsic part of the Nazi Party’s success was the ability of its leaders, primarily Hitler and Joseph Goebbels, to merge the themes of traditional German biases and patriotism with Nazi ideological motifs.[2] By anchoring National Socialist ideology upon existing German beliefs, the Nazis hoped to legitimise their regime, to create acceptance for ideologically based policies that would become increasingly radical as time passed, and to make the concepts of the National Socialist state and the German nation virtually indistinguishable in the minds of the public. These aims were still of vital importance on 1 September 1939 when World War II began and so was the propaganda that could be used to achieve them. Words alone cannot win a war, propaganda takes its place among other considerations such as military might, resources, production, and tactical strategy; propaganda can, however, help to ensure that a war remains focussed on external enemies and military success (or failure) rather than being undermined by active resistance at home. The identification between public and state that Nazi propaganda sought to create during the years of peace was a key factor in ensuring, during the war, that while support for Hitler and the regime would crumble, it did not collapse entirely.

When Hitler wrote Mein Kampf [My Struggle] he believed that propaganda was an essential means of attracting support for a regime and achieving at least passive recognition and understanding of its ideological aims.[3] It could be used to gain the heart of the masses and, ultimately, to win increasing numbers of active advocates who were willing to fight for and defend the ideology that the regime represented.[4] Accordingly, when Hitler came to power he created the Ministry of Propaganda and Popular Enlightenment [the RMVP] under the direction of Joseph Goebbels.[5] In his inaugural speech, Goebbels explained to the press that the function of the Ministry was to create an open dialogue between the people and the state.[6] The Ministry’s name reflected the new government’s desire to do more than simply enlighten the populace by providing information; it also wanted to instruct people how to interpret this information, so that government decisions could be easily understood.[7] By educating the populace about the aspirations and actions of the Nazi regime, the RMVP hoped to stimulate a genuine sympathy for and belief in Nazi ideology that, in the long-term, could translate into active participation in achieving the regime’s goals.[8]

The message underlying Goebbels’ speech, however, was that propaganda is the “deliberate and systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions and direct behaviour to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist.”[9] Propaganda does not necessarily require misinformation or lies but it does require a selective filtering of the truth and the use of appropriate biases; Goebbels’ speech was an example of state policy being presented as benefiting the people although it was the Nazis that were really the intended beneficiaries. In order to maximise the Party’s influence over the German public, Goebbels sought to centralise ideological and actual control of German media under the RMVP.[10] Propaganda is most effective when it is able to create a common cognitive environment; in this way certain ideas or values become so consistently prevalent that they can become internalised and appear normal.[11] By regulating the content of the German media to present a consistent, cohesive ideology and banning alternative or critical viewpoints, it was possible for the RMVP to influence belief often on an unconscious level.[12] For instance, the film Jud Süss (1940), with its anti-Semitic theme, carried an obvious propagandist message but the light-hearted romances and comedies that made up the majority of German films produced under the Nazis had to pass equally stringent censorship.[13] These films, produced for entertainment, seemed to audiences to lack overt propagandist themes but they still selectively reinforced the social and economic order desired by the Nazis, for instance by endorsing marriage or romanticising military life.[14]

The Nazi ideology present in these films, and elsewhere in the German media, did not significantly change when war began, however, the necessity of reacting to changing circumstances did mean that ideological themes could be adjusted, suppressed or expanded in their scope. The function of Nazi propaganda during the war was still to integrate individuals within a National Socialist ideology and to create support for governmental policies and actions. Aristotle Kallis argues that integration can be psychologically achieved through positive or negative ideological themes; the first appeals to desire and the latter creates fear.[15] Nazi propaganda prior to the war had used both positive and negative integration but had predominantly focussed on the former.[16] When war broke out, it was necessary to adjust these negative integration themes to new circumstances. The Nazi-Soviet Pact of Non-Aggression meant that it was no longer advisable to include anti-Bolshevik themes in German media, however, as anti-Bolshevism was considered a key part of Nazi ideology, the media was not permitted to speak positively of the Soviets either.[17] Instead, propaganda focussed on France, a traditional enemy, and plutocratic Britain as being stirred against Germany by international Jewry; the anti-Semitism used to link Germany’s enemies also linked the negative themes of wartime propaganda to those propagated pre-war.[18] Constancy in propaganda was also assured by Germany’s military successes in the early years of the war; as in peace, the RMVP was able to focus on positive integration and was able to gain support for the war through reinforcing positive ideological themes.[19]

The government’s awareness that the populace did not desire war meant that domestic propaganda produced by the RMVP carefully portrayed each new offensive strategy as being defensive.[20] The Wehrmacht’s [Armed Forces] actions were presented as pre-emptive counterattacks against strong enemies poised to assault Germany, rather than as aggressive manoeuvres.[21] War was shown as an unfortunate necessity but one that could greatly benefit Germany and her people. In this way war was linked to the positive ideological themes promoted during peace; Germany would fight to defend itself and at the same time could win additional lebensraum (living space) and glory.[22] In 1942, Goebbels wrote in his weekly article for Das Reich that the “limitless fields of the east” contained enough corn to feed Germany and all of Europe; the war would allow Germany to gain fresh fertile lands and vital resources with which to support itself.[23] The necessity of Germany’s territorial expansion was linked to Nazi racial myths of Aryan physical and cultural superiority. [24] Germany’s mission as culture-bearers, passively promoted during peace was promoted as being actualised during the war.[25]

The RMVP united the different themes of positive integration exhibited in domestic propaganda within two focal points.[26] The first of these was the greater German Volk [people]; the concept of Volksgemeinschaft, a united people working together for a common cause and for mutual benefit, was central to Nazi ideology both prior to and during the war.[27] Propaganda campaigns, such as the ‘One Pot Supper’ and Winterhilfesspende [Winter Aid], that involved mass participation were considered by the regime as symbols of having successfully created a National Socialist society that cared for its members and could work together to build a better future.[28] The second of these focal points, which the concept of the Volk was subjugated to, was Germany’s Führer [leader], Adolf Hitler. Ian Kershaw has written extensively about the creation of the ‘Hitler myth’, which began in the late 1920s.[29] Nazi propaganda spent years prior to the war creating Hitler as a mythic symbol; he was presented as a saviour, prophet, statesman, and father to the people.[30] During the early years of the war all military successes were attributed to his personal genius and he was described as a brilliant military leader.[31] The RMVP’s aim to combine the Nazi Socialist state and Germany as a nation into a single, indivisible concept in the minds of the people was reflected in propaganda that described the armed forces as “soldier(s) of Adolf Hitler” who were “ready to fight and die for the Führer”; Germany and Hitler had become interchangeable terms in German media.[32]

Unfortunately, the ideas of the Führer and victory also became indivisible in the minds of the public.[33] This proved problematic when, from the fall of Stalingrad in 31 January 1943, the war began to turn against Germany and victory no longer appeared certain.[34] Hitler’s decision to go to war with the Soviet Union, on 22 June 1941, would prove to be a decisive turning point in the war; mismanagement of military strategy, ultimately, led to German forces failing to control the Eastern Front, allowing Soviet troops to advance on Germany. In turn, mismanagement of propaganda strategies relating to the Eastern Front, compounded by later military failures, resulted in a growing estrangement between the regime and the German people.[35] The announcement of war with the Soviet Union mirrored earlier aggressive actions, the Soviets were portrayed as traitors who had been preparing to strike at Germany and when Hitler discovered this, a pre-emptive strike had been ordered.[36] The RMVP was now able to renew anti-Bolshevist themes, however, there were differences of opinion as to how these themes should be expressed.[37] Some within the Nazi Party, such as Goebbels, wanted Germany to be presented as a liberator of the ‘oppressed Eastern peoples’, others, such as Hitler and Heinrich Himmler, saw Germany as liberating land and resources from their racial inferiors, who were only suitable as slaves.[38] This resulted in the RMVP producing propaganda that lacked consistency.[39] The Soviets were portrayed as subhuman, bestial, torturers who deserved to be destroyed but also as a suffering people in primitive conditions that required German assistance.[40]

The inconsistencies within portrayals of the Soviets, and other Eastern peoples, were highlighted by the growing opportunities for the German people to interact with them.[41] Thousands of people considered to be of ‘inferior racial stock’ were brought into German controlled lands to be used as workers, predominantly on farms.[42] Those working with them soon realized that rather than meeting inferiors, they were meeting intelligent, hard-workers who often shared the same religious beliefs as them.[43] On the Eastern Front, soldiers were realizing that they were fighting soldiers as determined, intelligent and well-equipped as themselves.[44] Propaganda works best in an environment where alternative information is not available to contradict it. As the war continued, increasingly events in people’s lives were revealing information supplied by the RMVP to be false, overly confident, or inadequate.[45] This was not merely true of the Eastern Front; as bombing raids of German cities intensified, it became progressively apparent that the Luftwaffe [German Airforce] was inadequate to protect Germany from air attacks by the English and Americans.[46] Internal reports indicate there was a growing concern within the Nazi Party that state propaganda was being actively questioned by the public and compared with information obtained from other sources.[47] Morale reports, formulated by the Sicherheitsdienst [Secret Service],[48] showed that repeated delays in announcing important events occurring during the war, vague information and a fear that the government was couching setbacks within optimistic phrases prompted the public to turn to rumours, letters from soldiers, and foreign radio reports for additional information with which to form their own judgements on the war situation.[49]

As public distrust in state media increased and the German military moved, largely, onto a defensive footing, propaganda produced by the RMVP shifted from focusing primarily on positive themes to negative integration.[50] The Nazi government needed to retain at least the passive support of the populace; it needed the factories to keep producing and the soldiers to keep fighting.[51] In the final years of the war, propaganda emphasising the mythic status of Hitler and the Nazi state was intensified.[52] Despite shortages and poor working conditions, as film supplies ran out and infrastructure was destroyed by bombing raids, new films were produced that promoted Germany’s great destiny or compared Hitler with Frederick the Great, whose visionary leadership saved the Germans from defeat.[53] The government was aware, however, that support for the Nazis, and even for Hitler, was deteriorating, as victory seemed increasingly unlikely.[54] Therefore, as the Soviets began to move towards Germany, domestic propaganda sought to retain the obedience of the public through fear of the enemy.[55]

When the RMVP was first created in 1933, Goebbels expressed a desire to genuinely win the support of the German public for the Nazi Party and its ideology. In the final years of the war he was forced to realize that this no longer seemed possible, however, even if they did not love the regime it was necessary that they obey it.[56] Nazi propaganda had spent years building in the public’s mind the association of state and nation; the Nazi Party was equated with Germany itself and Nazi ideological motifs had been merged with traditional German patriotism.[57] The RMVP actively sought to remind the public that their external enemies also equated the Nazi Party with Germany. Goebbels advised that the new message that was to be present in domestic media was that ‘no matter what an individual German’s attitude was to National Socialism, everybody would have their throat cut if Germany were defeated;’ the consequences of defeat would effect everyone, not only Nazis.[58]

The RMVP began producing large amounts of propaganda detailing the atrocities committed by Soviets against those their army encountered; this ranged from accounts of the Katyn Massacre, to assaults on German non-combatants as the Soviets reached German occupied areas.[59] The aim was to produce a sense of terror within the population and a determination to continue fighting, whatever the cost, because the alternative was too horrifying to consider.[60] Years of being exposed to anti-Bolshevist propaganda, combined with the very real threat that Soviet troops posed, made the German population particularly receptive to these terror tactics.[61] Goebbels believed that if the German people were not willing to fight to defend the Nazi regime, then they would have to be convinced that they were fighting for their lives and Germany’s continued existence.[62] The Soviets, English, and Americans, unified by international Jewry, were presented as a combined enemy force determined to destroy Germany.[63] The threat these countries represented, and the fear resulting from it, was designed to unify the German people and keep them focussed on these external enemies, rather than looking inwards and potentially challenging the regime itself.

In 1945, Germany was forced to surrender to the superior military forces of the Allied nations, however, this surrender was significantly different to that offered in 1918. Despite the death of key leaders, such as Hitler, the government that surrendered was one run by Nazis; there was no revolution or domestic crisis that prompted the surrender.[64] The RMVP cannot be said to have been fully successful in its aims. When the war ended, the Nazi Party was not loved and Hitler’s cult-like status had greatly deteriorated.[65] It was only in the final year of the war that domestic propaganda was completely centralised and run along unified themes determined by the RMVP.[66] Prior to that the RMVP suffered, as did all the ministries, from the competitive conflict and duality of responsibilities that Hitler promoted in state-run bureaucracies.[67] Propaganda issued by the RMVP, for instance through the radio, could be contradicted by press releases authorised by Otto Dietrich, as Reich Press Chief and adjutant to Hitler.[68] Similarly, the daily communiqué issued by the Wehrmacht and edited personally by Hitler, often took a different, and far more positive, approach to interpreting events than did the RMVP.[69] As the war progressed the German public increasingly sought information from non-state sources and actively questioned the information they received. Yet, despite it’s failure to retain the public’s trust the RMVP proved remarkably effective in producing propaganda that integrated Germans into a Nazi-led society.[70] This, to Hitler at least, was the ultimate definition of successful propaganda, that a society would remain committed to war as the years passed and continue to turn its guns towards external enemies.[71]

The reasons explaining why there was little active resistance, in terms of sabotage or open revolution, against the Nazi regime during World War II are complex.[72] The war remains a sensitive issue in the psyche of those nations that were affected by it. It is difficult to judge how objective personal reports of thoughts, feelings or actions during the war are; under the Nazi regime there was the possibility of being reported to officials if one’s opinions conflicted with Nazi ideology and aims, after the war there was the risk of being judged and condemned by an international audience. Examining those primary sources that are available and applying general psychology indicates that there was no single reason why the German people continued to serve the regime. Some would have genuinely believed in all, or part, of the Nazi Party’s ideology and aims, especially where they incorporated patriotism.[73] Others would have gone to work, despite the bombed infrastructure and lack of transport, to retain some semblance of normality in their lives.[74] Some would have feared the consequences of failure and invasion by enemy troops.[75] Others would have feared the repercussions if they were caught acting against the regime and would have hoped to survive by simply remaining inconspicuous.[76] It is my belief, however, that the propaganda produced by the RMVP, during the years of peace and of war, did have a cumulative effect on the population and was a significant factor in causing the German people to appear to offer at least passive support to the Nazi regime until the end of the war.[77]

[1] Richard F. Schier, [Review] ‘Hitler: A Study in Tyranny’, The Western Political Quarterly, vol.6, no.3, September 1953, pp.573-5.
As the focus of this essay is on the relationship between the Nazi regime and the German people, I will be confining the essay to a consideration of domestic propaganda. I recognise that one function of the Reich Ministry of Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda, a function that it shared with other ministries, was that of foreign propaganda. However, a full discussion of Nazi foreign propaganda, including its purposes, methods, effectiveness and limitations is outside the scope of this brief examination of Nazi propaganda.
[2] Jay W. Baird, The Mythical World of Nazi War Propaganda 1939-1945, Minneapolis, 1974, p.4.
[3] Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, trans. Ralph Manheim and intro. D.C. Watt, London, 1992, reprint, 2001, p.529.
[4] Hitler, pp.164-7, 529.
[5] The Reichministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda [Reich Ministry for Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda], commonly abbreviated to the RMVP, was created in March 1933 after Hitler had become Chancellor.
[6] Goebbels, Joseph, ‘Speech to representatives of the press on the tasks of the Ministry for Propaganda,’ 15 March 1933, in: David Welch, The Third Reich. Politics and Propaganda, 2nd edn, London and New York, 1993, reprint 2002, p.177.
[7] Ibid. p.174.
[8] Ibid. p.173.
[9]Garth S. Jowett and Victoria O'Donnell, Propaganda and persuasion, 2nd edn., Calif, 1992, p. 4.
[10] Aristotle Kallis and David Welch both offer excellent overviews of the regulation and consolidation of the German media, during the 1930s, by the RMVP.
Aristotle A. Kallis, ‘Chapter 1: Propaganda, ‘Co-ordination’ and ‘Centralisation’: The Goebbels Network in Search of a Total Empire’, Nazi Propaganda and the Second World War, Houndmills and New York, 2005, pp.17-40.
David Welch, ‘Chapter 3: Restructuring the means of communication’, The Third Reich. Politics and Propaganda, 2nd edn, London and New York, 1993, reprint 2002, pp.28-57.
[11] Kallis, p.2.
[12] For instance, the Editor’s Law, 4 October 1933, required all newspaper editors to be German citizens, classified as Aryans, and prohibited them from producing newspapers that criticized the regime; they were effectively turned into state censors.
‘Editor’s Law’, 4 October 1933, in: Welch, pp.191-3.
[13] Jud Süss, dir. Veit Harlan, Terra-Filmkunst, 1940. Welch, p.55.
[14] Welch, p.55.
[15] Kallis, pp.64-70.
[16] Welch, pp.60-72.
Norbert Frei, ‘People’s Community and War: Hitler’s Support,’ The Third Reich: Between Vision and Reality. New Perspectives on German History 1919-1945, (ed.) Hans Mommsen, Oxford and New York, 2001, pp.63-4.
[17] The Nazi-Soviet Pact of Non-Aggression was signed on 23 August 1939 and was in effect till 22 June 1941 when Germany invaded the Soviet Union.
Jeremy Noakes, (ed.), Nazism 1919-1945. Volume 4, The German Home Front in World War 11. A Documentary Reader, Devon, 1998, p.473-4. Kallis, p.76.
[18] At the beginning of the war Goebbels issued directives for the media to link France, Britain and the Jews as warmongers who wished to limit German freedom. The media were to show that it was necessary for Germany to defend itself and prevent further shameful restrictions like those contained in the Treaty of Versailles. ‘Conference Notes’, 17 September 1939, in: Noakes, p.471.
Baird, pp.98, 116-7, 120-1. Kallis, pp.72-6.
[19] Ernest K. Bramsted, Goebbels and National Socialist Propaganda, 1925-1945, East Lansing, 1965, p.233. Noakes, p.466. Welch, pp.124-5.
[20]For instance, newspaper articles about the outbreak of war describe Germany as desiring peace but being forced to defend itself against envious enemy nations planning to suppress German military and economic development. Dr F., ‘Warum und wofür?’, Die Wehrmacht, vol.3, no.19, 1939, p.2, in: German Propaganda Archive, (accessed 13 October 2006). Joseph Goebbels, "Englands Schuld," [England’s Guilt] Illustrierter Beobachter, Sondernummer, 1939, p. 14, in: German Propaganda Archive, (accessed 13 October 2006).
Welch, p.117. Kallis, p.72.
[21] During Goebbels’ daily media conferences he issued directives emphasising that Germany must be shown to be defending itself and must not be portrayed as an aggressor as they were during World War I. ‘Conference Notes’, 11 May 1940, in: Willi A. Boelcke, (ed.), and Ewald Osers (trans.), The Secret Conferences of Dr. Goebbels. The Nazi Propaganda Way, 1939-43, New York, 1970, p.40. Baird, p.42.
[22] Noakes, p.466.
[23] Joseph Goebbels, ‘[Article title not supplied]’, Das Reich, 31 May 1942, n.pag., in: Noakes, p.486.
Bramsted, p.255-6.
[24] Kallis, p.65.
[25] For instance, Goebbels in a public speech described the occupation of Czechoslovakia as being part of a larger plan to reorganize, reinvigorate and unify Europe. Germany’s advanced culture would be shared with those around them and German might would protect Europe from attack, for instance by the English.
Goebbels, Joseph, ‘The Coming Europe’, 11 September 1940, in: "Das kommende Europa. Rede an die tschechischen Kulturschaffenden und Journalisten," Die Zeit ohne Beispiel, Munich, 1941, pp. 314-323, in: Randall Bytwerk (trans.), German Propaganda Archive, (accessed 13 October 2006).
[26] Welch, p.18.
[27] Kallis, p.65.
[28] The ‘One Pot’ Meal campaign encouraged Germans to have one single-course meal each week so that they would be better able to give to welfare. The Winter Aid campaign in 1941 called upon every individual to support German soldiers on the Eastern Front by donating winter clothing and equipment.
Frei, p.65. Baird, p.173. Welch, p.72.
[29] Ian Kershaw, The ‘Hitler Myth’: Image and Reality in the Third Reich, Oxford, 1987.
[30] Ibid. pp.41, 80. Welch, pp.107-116.
[31] For instance, the poem ‘Der Führer in Compiègnè’, published in 1940, after the successful invasion of France, portrays Hitler as a great leader guiding Germany towards eternal glory. ‘Der Führer in Compiègnè’, 1940, in: Welch, p.125. Bramsted, p.219.
[32] Ritgen, Wilhelm, ‘Legacy’, Das heldische Jahr. Front und Heimat berichten den Krieg, (eds.) Wilfrid Bade and Wilmont Haake, Berlin, 1941, in: German Propaganda Archive, (accessed 13/10/06). [The book collates ninety-seven German newspaper articles on the war that were first published during 1940.]
Kershaw, The ‘Hitler Myth’: Image and Reality in the Third Reich, pp.151-2.
[33] Bramsted,, p.225.
[34] Bramsted, p.289.
[35] Baird, pp.205-6. Kallis, p.81. Noakes, p.537.
[36] Baird, p.152, 174.
[37] Kallis, p.76.
[38] Baird, pp.157-161. Welch, p.131.
[39] Z.A.B. Zeman, Nazi Propaganda, 2nd edn., London and New York, 1973, pp.162-3.
Welch, p.131.
[40] Baird, pp.158-161.
[41] Welch, pp.134-5.
[42] Noakes, p.540.
[43] S.D. report, 20 July 1942, H. Boberach, ed., Meldungen aus dem Reich. Die geheimen Lageberichte des Sicherheitsdiensts der SS 1938-1945, Herrsching, 1984, p.286-9, in: Ian Kershaw, Popular Opinion and Political Dissent in the Third Reich, Bavaria 1933-1945, Oxford, 1983, p.288.
S.D. report, 17 August 1942, Boberach (ed.), pp.3089-3090, in: Noakes, pp.539-540.
[44] Noakes, p.540.
[45] Morale reports formulated by the Sicherheitsdienst [Secret Service] speak of the German public’s frustration when state information did not seem to accurately represent events, for instance by being overly optimistic. S.D. report, 7 October 1941, in: Welch, p.126.
[46] Baird, p.127, 132. Welch, p.145.
[47] Party Chancellory summary of Gau reports for 7-20 March 1943, BAB NS 6/414, in: Jeremy Noakes, (ed.), Nazism 1919-1945. Volume 4, The German Home Front in World War 11. A Documentary Reader, Devon, 1998, pp.546-8.
[48] The Sicherheitsdienst were an intelligence-gathering arm of Himmler’s Secret Service. Gruppenführer Otto Ohlendorf, who edited the S.D. reports, is attributed as ensuring the reports were characterized by an honesty that was uncommon in the Nazi state. Baird describes their reports as objective assessments of public opinion, despite being written by members of the Nazi Party, due to their willingness to offer criticism of the regime even when this incurred official disfavour.
Baird, p.39.
[49] S.D. report, 22 January 1942, Boberach (ed.), pp.3195-6, in: Noakes, pp.537-8.
Baird, pp.38, 133, 153-4, 179, 200, 203. Kallis, p.131, 137-8.
[50] Bramsted, p.316. Kershaw, Popular Opinion and Political Dissent in the Third Reich, Bavaria 1933-1945, p.385. Welch, p.143.
Although anti-Semitism was present in these themes of negative integration, the Jews were presented as a malevolent force in the background while the Soviets were focussed on as the actual danger and represented the threat of physical violence. I have focussed, therefore, on the RMVP’s use of the Soviet threat to control the population, rather than on racial propaganda and policies relating to the Jews which require an essay of their own to receive adequate consideration.
[51] One critic of Goebbels, a staff member of the RMVP, commented after the war that he felt that Gestapo terror was not sufficient by itself to keep munition workers in the factories or to keep production at a high intensity; his personal opinion was that propaganda had played a large role in successfully keeping the factories operating.
W. Stephan, Joseph Goebbels: Dämon einer Diktatur, Stuttgart, 1949, pp.271-272, in: Bramsted, p.357.
[52] Baird, p.241. Bramsted, p.227.
[53] Kallis, pp.150, 193, 199-201. Noakes, pp.505-6.
[54] S.D. reports commented on increasing criticism of the Nazi Party in the later years of the war, for instance in: S.D. report, 8 July 1943, Boberach (ed.), pp.5446ff, in: Noakes, p.117. Kallis, pp.4-5.
[55] Baird, p.194. Kallis, pp.89-90.
[56] Kallis, pp.4-5.
[57] Baird, p.4. Welch, 9.
[58]A month later Goebbels added that the public must be corrected of the idea that the Bolsheviks would only hang Nazis. ‘Conference Notes’, 21 January 1943 and 17 February 1943, in: Boelcke, pp.319, 333.
[59] In 1943 mass graves were discovered in the Katyn Forest, near Germany. The graves contained the bodies of thousands of Polish citizens and officers. Nazi propaganda used the discovery to instil fear in German citizens living near the border that the Soviets would commit similar atrocities against them. Baird, p.194. Bramsted, pp.328-9.
[60] Bramsted, p.249, 316.
[61] Noakes, pp.638-9.
[62] Goebbel’s speech advocating ‘total war’ is one example of RMVP produced propaganda that describes the threat of Soviet destruction or enslavement of Germany. Goebbels, Joseph, ‘Nation, Rise Up and Let the Storm Break Loose’, [radio speech], 18 February 1943, in: German Propaganda Archive, (accessed 29 August 2006).
Baird, pp.246-7.
[63]In representing these enemies, Nazi propaganda drew upon existing biases within German society, for instance anti-Bolshevism and anti-liberalism. Baird, p.194, 201. Kallis, pp.70-1.
[64] Noakes, p.637.
[65]Ian Kershaw argues that the extent of belief in Hitler, which built up in the years prior to 1940, helped to mitigate disillusionment and greatly slowed a decline in his popularity. Kershaw, Popular Opinion and Political Dissent in the Third Reich, Bavaria 1933-1945, p.171. Welch, p.146. Kallis, p.148.
[66] In June 1944 Goebbels gained the power to veto Otto Dietrich’s daily press directives but conflict between the men continued until 30 March 1945, when Hitler fired Dietrich.
Baird, p.31.
[67] Kallis, pp.7-9, 39.
[68] Rudolf Semmler, a staff member at the RMVP commented in his journal about the conflict between directives issued by Goebbels and by Dietrich, and how their personal standing with Hitler affected which directive was obeyed. Rudolf Semmler, 13 March 1943, Goebbels – the man next to Hitler, with an introduction by D. McLachlan and notes by G.S. Wagner, London, 1947, p.74.
Baird, p.166-7. Kallis, p.112.
[69] Baird, p.32. Welch, p.118.
[70] Noakes, 507.
[71] Hitler, p.168.
[72] Robert Gellately, Backing Hitler. Consent and coercion in Nazi Germany, Oxford, 2001, p.224.
[73] Noakes, pp.638-9.
[74] Noakes, pp.640-1.
[75] Jeremy Noakes argues that propaganda was highly influential in this respect. Noakes, pp.638-9. Welch, p.155.
[76] By the end of 1943 terror related not only to external enemies but also to Himmler’s secret service agents such as the Schutzstaffeln [SS] and Gestapo; defeatists were denounced as traitors endangering all Germans and their deaths were publicly announced as deterrents. Ernest Bramsted argues, as does Noakes, that fear of the regime and fear of the Soviets meant that German citizens felt they had little option but to continue in the war effort. Bramsted, p.275. Noakes, pp.639-40.
Kershaw, Popular Opinion and Political Dissent in the Third Reich, Bavaria 1933-1945, p.295-6.
[77] Welch, p.158. Kallis, p.213, 223. Noakes, pp.638-9.

2006-10-14T13:13:00.000+13:00

Nor shines the silver moon one half so bright.
Through the transparent bosom of the deep,
As doth thy face through tears of mine give light.

-Love's Labour's Lost IV.iii.7

Damn that weed!

2006-10-14T13:11:00.000+13:00

Troops battle 10-foot marijuana plants
Fri Oct 13, 2006 8:50am ET

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canadian troops fighting Taliban militants in Afghanistan have stumbled across an unexpected and potent enemy -- almost impenetrable forests of 10-feet-high marijuana plants.
General Rick Hillier, chief of the Canadian defense staff, said on Thursday that Taliban fighters were using the forests as cover. In response, the crew of at least one armored car had camouflaged their vehicle with marijuana.
"The challenge is that marijuana plants absorb energy, heat very readily. It's very difficult to penetrate with thermal devices ... and as a result you really have to be careful that the Taliban don't dodge in and out of those marijuana forests," he said in a speech in Ottawa.
"We tried burning them with white phosphorous -- it didn't work. We tried burning them with diesel -- it didn't work. The plants are so full of water right now ... that we simply couldn't burn them," he said.
Even successful incineration had its drawbacks.
"A couple of brown plants on the edges of some of those (forests) did catch on fire. But a section of soldiers that was downwind from that had some ill effects and decided that was probably not the right course of action," Hillier said dryly.
One soldier told him later: "Sir, three years ago before I joined the army, I never thought I'd say 'That damn marijuana'."

2006-10-12T16:00:00.000+13:00

You know that you're stressed when it seems like too much pressure to save a Word document under the title 'assignment' - after all, what if you come back to it the next day, decide that it's utter crap and begin from scratch in a totally different way (been there, done that)? With major assignments (Stage III and at the 50% mark) due pretty much every week I've gradually moved from saving files as assignments to drafts to thoughts and finally, nervously, to simply 'Document 2'. I've also decided that I'm thankful that I chose English as my major and not history as it's far easier to write an English assignment. Drawing on other people's opinions is a good thing but ultimately it's all about your own and you can stubbornly criticise the very subjective arguments of others. History on the other hand is far more touchy, it, after all, makes the attempt at claiming to be objective. There's the illusory grail at the end of everything - that promise of truth and 'what actually happened'. Which is partially correct and partially bollocks as everything is subjective and some are more subjective than others. Nazi Germany is one of those things. It's still far too fresh, recent, and provocative for one to approach this still bleeding wound in western civilisation's mental psche without being very, very cautious. Each word has to be justified with care and can prompt a divergent discourse on a completely different, but still associated, historiographical debate. I had naively thought that writing my final essay on propaganda would be easy, especially having covered it in various political parties. The problem with living history is that the analytical and theoretical approach that my Political paper advocated doesn't go down particularly well. There is still a very real sense that any argument made effects the way that you are seen to view the much larger arguments - like the 'special fate' (Sonderweg) debate, or 'collective guilt', or the Holocaust. I'm beginning to feel that to do this essay justice I needed to research three seperate essay topics, since discussing the effectiveness of propaganda should almost inevitably lead to questions of race and resistance. Both of which were seperate essay topics of their own. Damn.

2006-10-10T16:50:00.000+13:00

I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.
- Umberto Eco

Essay for Adolescent Fiction - done, yay!

2006-10-09T09:53:00.000+13:00

Fast-talking Dames and Beautiful Blondes: the representation of women in romantic comedy.

When a woman appears on screen, what the audience sees is not a woman in front of them but the representation of a woman. A series of choices have been consciously made as to how she will be filmed, for instance what camera angles will be used, what her appearance will be and what dialogue she will speak. Her portrayal in the film may depict the desired role of women in society, as perceived by the director or studio producers, or it may present an alternative image of femininity. Traditionally, ‘acceptable’ femininity has been portrayed by women who are passive, obedient, nurturing and who take care of their appearance; these are women who are wives, mothers and who receive desire rather than acting on their own.[1] In romantic comedy, however, gender roles are often playfully inverted enabling these films to explore the idea of confident, intelligent, active and sexually aware women.[2] On the other hand, the women in these films are considered atypical and the ideological threat that they represent is normally ‘contained’ by the films having a conservative ending that restores the gender balance.[3] Most commonly, the films uphold the values of society, by ending with a wedding, or the hope of a wedding.[4] They thus reaffirm one of the most traditional Western institutions and they imply that the woman, by becoming a wife, has been returned to the restrictive world of submissive domesticity.[5] As society changes, increasing numbers of feminist film critics are questioning whether the representation of women in film has altered or improved.[6] In examining modern representations of femininity, for instance in the adolescent films 10 Things I Hate About You or Legally Blonde, it is worth considering whether the images of women presented in earlier romantic comedies, such as Bringing Up Baby or Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, are as conservative as they appear at first glance.[7]

During the 1930s Hollywood introduced a new kind of woman to American audiences, the ‘fast-talking dames’ of screwball [romantic] comedy.[8] These films combined the verbal repartee that the advent of sound allowed, with the physical slapstick popular in the silent films of the 1920s.[9] These films paired strong female protagonists with weak male partners; the normal gendered power dynamics were reversed and this generated part of these films’ pleasure and comedic value for audiences.[10] The charm of these heroines, like Katharine Hepburn’s Susan Vance in Bringing up Baby (1938), was their polysemous nature; they both endorsed conservative values of femininity and they questioned whether all of these were truly desirable.[11] Susan, in Bringing Up Baby, in some ways, portrays an ideal woman: she doesn’t work; she is nurturing; she is associated with childrearing, with her leopard, named Baby, symbolically representing the live child she can give David; and she wants to marry him. Susan’s free-spirited vibrancy, however, consistently resists restriction by conventionality and this is part of her appeal. For instance, Susan steals David’s golf ball, and his car, and then proceeds to lecture him on his use of the possessive pronoun when he rebukes her. The ball and the car are his but Susan’s word play illuminates the narcissism underlying his focus on ownership; although Susan will also become his at the end of the film it will be as a willing companion not as an objectified possession.[12] Susan’s active pursuit of David, as the object of her sexual choice, sets her apart from the passivity expected of women, as do her confident sexuality, vitality, spontaneity and sense of play but these prove to be positive qualities.[13] By teaching David to embrace the vitality of her worldview she saves him from the deadening sterility of his museum work displayed in the film’s opening scene.[14] Susan’s confidence and determination throughout Bringing Up Baby work to undermine the conservative elements of the film; the ending is not one forced upon her but one that she has actively brought about on her own terms.

The fast-paced wit of Hepburn’s Susan is strongly contrasted by the languid sensuality of Marilyn Monroe’s Lorelei Lee in Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (1953), but the two heroines have a great deal in common. Both of them are used to take familiar concepts associated with a patriarchally defined femininity and examine them in a new light. Wes Gehring argues that the promise of marriage that usually ends screwball romantic comedies detracts from the strength of the female protagonist and that these endings reassert a “man-above-woman world order.”[15] Susan, in Bringing Up Baby, however, shows that marriage can be about partnership rather than dominance. She endues David with her energetic sense of play and he offers her his stability, most notably at the end when he saves her from falling. At the end of the film Susan has not changed whereas David significantly has; the power of Susan’s confidence is to force the world to change around her.[16] In Gentleman Prefer Blondes, although Lorelei’s marital status alters she remains unabashedly the same; instead, she forces others, such as Mr Esmonde Sr., to alter their view of women to agree with her perspective.

The opening of Gentlemen Prefer Blondes’ indulgence in opulent sensuality would, at first, seem to support Laura Mulvey’s feminist criticism of film. Mulvey argues that narrative cinema favours masculine pleasure by objectifying women and determining them as the passive receivers of the desiring male gaze.[17] Monroe’s Lorelei and Jane Russell’s Dorothy Shaw in their colour saturated red sequin dresses certainly offer an erotic spectacle that unifies the gaze of its diegetic and extra-diegetic male audiences.[18] The film, however, is ambivalent as to whether this male gaze is something to be condemned. Maria Pini recorded interviews in 1997 and 2001 where numerous young women spoke about the pleasure they took in cultivating a particularly sexualised appearance for clubbing. They emphasised that this did not represent a sexual invitation but rather was geared to their own pleasure at being looked at.[19] Similarly, Dorothy and Lorelei take pleasure in their attractiveness to men; the looks they receive add to their sense of empowerment. When they first attend dinner on the liner, the camera pulls back to a long-shot that shows they are controlling the space around them. They are aware of and invite the male gaze but they are simultaneously looking back.[20] This sense of self-awareness and of control is also present in the film’s ending. The film’s narrative indicates that Lorelei is aware that the capitalist society she lives in is designed to allow men, rather than women, to work and grow rich.[21] Lorelei uses her beauty and vocal talents to support herself but sees marriage as an alternative economic contract where she exchanges her beauty for male wealth. Although not a romantic idea, it was in part a realistic assessment of the opportunities available to women at the time; the validity of her economic understanding is seen in her convincing the pragmatic Mr Esmond Sr. to accept her worldview and allow her to marry his son.

Gentlemen Prefer Blondes was pragmatically aware that there was a gender imbalance in economic power present in society; however, Lorelei addresses this in the film by defending her right to capitalize upon the assets she has, her good looks. Lorelei, like Susan, represents a mix of traditional feminine values; her attention to her appearance and desire to marry appear conservative but the film portrays her as knowingly using these to her advantage and confidently asserting herself within a patriarchal society.[22] The world has moved on since Marilyn Monroe, there are new employment opportunities for women and the 1990s was a decade that recalled the height of feminism as the media filled with images and sounds promoting female empowerment.[23] Tizzy Asher and other feminist critics, however, argue that the fundamentals have not changed; women still live in a culture of heterosexual, patriarchal privilege that attempts to enforce traditional ideas of acceptable femininity.[24] The tension between conservative and revisionist representations of women in film has, therefore, continued although the setting has shifted to include the burgeoning youth market.

As the world’s population has, demographically, grown increasingly younger, Hollywood has increasingly sought to cultivate this potentially lucrative market.[25] In 1999, 10 Things I Hate About You brought Kat Stratford, played by Julia Stiles, to international fame. Wearing combat fatigues, reading feminist literature, listening to ‘Riot Grrrl’ rock, she could have been presented as a confident, articulate, intelligent young woman who unashamedly lived life according to her values.[26] Unfortunately, the film seems uncomfortable with the sassy woman it creates; the narrative more readily endorses beautiful Bianca who simply wants to be popular and enjoy her adolescence.[27] Critics examining femininity in 10 Things I Hate About You have encountered similar problems to those considering William Shakespeare’s Taming of The Shrew, on which the film is loosely based.[28] Michael Friedman argues that Kat is so rigidly antagonistic in her feminist ideology that she has significantly alienated herself from her peer group;[29] she is referred to as a “heinous bitch”, has possibly hospitalised a young man, and her feminist statements are so repetitive that Bianca can finish them for her. Friedman argues, therefore, that the conservative ending, which shows Kat wearing a skirt for the first time, being publicly vulnerable and breaking down crying over her love for Patrick, actually shows Kat moving towards a gentler feminism[30]. She has learned how to interact with others in a more personally fulfilling and rewarding way.[31] The problem with Friedman’s arguments is that he sees Kat’s violation of traditional gender roles as a fundamental problem in her character that the film must resolve by changing her. Kat is most reminiscent of Hepburn’s Susan when she plays paintball with Patrick; this scene better captures a sense of play, confidence and romantically interacting while remaining herself, than the ending does. Despite classroom banners advocating self-reliance rather than conformity, Kat alters to conform to her peers, far more than she changes the world around her.[32]

10 Things I Hate About You contains contradictory messages of what a modern young woman should be like. Kat is a far more conservative heroine than Susan or Lorelei, although she doesn’t appear so at the beginning of the film, unlike them she is remarkably passive and chooses to conform to a more acceptable femininity at the end of the film. Surprisingly, it is her sister Bianca, beautiful and manipulative, who is more consistently portrayed as self-assured, willing to aggressively pursue whatever, or whoever, she wants, and as capable of asserting herself against the patriarchal order.[33] Bianca represents a move towards what Melissa Klein calls ‘third-wave feminism’ where women claim their right to be both assertive and glamorous.[34] A few years later, in 2001, Legally Blonde offered an updated version of Bianca in the form of Elle Woods. Her character positively affirms the right of women to take society’s traditional expectations of them and make them their own, while simultaneously revising women’s role within society.

Elle Woods is beautiful, blonde, rich and her school’s homecoming queen; her looks and situation result in society expecting her to be vacuous and content to become a ‘society wife’.[35] The film doesn’t condemn women who choose to embrace this, like Elle’s friends Serena and Margot, but it does condemn those who judge others based on superficial appearances.[36] Elle is incredibly smart, yet even her love object, Warner, can’t see past her looks to the woman underneath and this prompts her to re-evaluate her goals.[37] Even in her moments of self-doubt, Elle is presented throughout the film as a woman supremely capable of forging her own way through society and retaining her unique sense of style and self while doing so. The film reclaims the idea that women’s interest in fashion, female friendships and the trivial are positive things.[38] It is Elle’s warm nature and belief in female solidarity that single her out in Professor Callahan’s legal team and allow her to discover Brooke’s innocence; additionally, it is her attention to ‘trivial’ details that wins Brooke’s case. In the courtroom Elle combines the familiar motifs of the ‘fast-talking dame’ and the ‘beautiful blonde’ to show that looks and intelligence are not mutually exclusive. Nor are these shown to preclude love; her developing relationship with Emmett is one based upon mutual respect.[39] The film does end with the promise of a wedding but the adoring gaze Emmett directs at Elle recognises more than her beauty, it affirms her confidence in herself and her personal success as she graduates from Harvard Law School as the keynote speaker for her class.

Legally Blonde, like Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, is pragmatic in the way it considers the representation of women in society and actively considers the way that women are perceived. Elle’s appearance, like Lorelei’s, invites the male gaze but the narrative indicates that this is for her own pleasure rather than being a sexual invitation.[40] Moreover, the narrative repeatedly focuses on the message that identity is a composite that involves more than just appearance. Through Elle and Professor Stromwell the film shows that beautiful women can be intelligent and intelligent women can have an interest in beauty.[41] Legally Blonde contains powerful female figures that have achieved independent financial success by believing in and remaining true to themselves, even when they encounter men like Callahan who will always see women as inferiors who should fetch their coffee. Legally Blonde, more than 10 Things I Hate About You, presents a revised femininity that draws upon past heroines, like Susan Vance and Lorelei Lee, while embracing the new opportunities available to women. It emphasises that women have the right to choose what values they embrace and that it is possible for women to achieve personal, economic, and romantic success without having to conform to the standards that others set them.

[1] Kathleen Rowe Karlyn, ‘ “Too Close for Comfort”: American Beauty and the Incest Motif,’ Cinema Journal, vol. 44, no.1, 2004, pp.69-93.
Tina Olsin Lent, ‘Romantic Love and Friendship: The Redefinition of Gender Relations in Screwball Comedy’, Classical Hollywood Comedy, (eds.) Kristine Brunovska Karnick and Henry Jenkins, New York: American Film Institute, 1995, p.317.
Matthews, Nicole, Comic Politics. Gender in Hollywood comedy after the new right, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2000, p.80.
[2] Wes D. Gehring, Screwball Comedy. A Genre of Madcap Romance, New York: Greenwood Press, 1986, p.3.
[3] Lent, pp.315, 319.
[4] Gehring, p.155.
[5] Ibid. p.155.
[6] For instance in: Patricia Erens, (ed.), Issues in Feminist Film Criticism, Blommington: Indiana University Press, 1990.
[7] 10 Things I Hate About You, dir. Gil Junger, Touchstone Pictures, 1999.
Legally Blonde, dir. Robert Luketic, MGM Pictures, 2001.
Bringing up Baby, dir. Howard Hawks, RKO Pictures, 1938.
Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, dir. Howard Hawks, Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation, 1953.
[8] Maria di Battista, Fast-Talking Dames, New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001, p.176.
Gehring, p.3.
[9] Lent, p.327.
[10] di Battista, p.181.
[11] An excellent essay on the critical importance of polysemy in media texts is: John Fiske, ‘Television: Polysemy and Popularity’ in: Robert K. Avery and David Eason (eds.), Critical Perspectives on Media and Society, New York: The Guilford Press, 1991, pp.347-355.
[12] di Battista, pp.190-1.
[13] Ibid. pp.176, 179-180.
[14] Gerald Mast, ‘Bringing up Baby,’ Bringing Up Baby (Rutgers Films in Print), ed. Gerald Mast, New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1988, p.297.
di Battista, p.200.
[15] Gehring, p.155.
[16] Mast, p.295. di Battista, pp.185,189.
[17] Laura Mulvey, ‘Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema’, Issues in Feminist Film Criticism, ed. Patricia Erens, Blommington: Indiana University Press, 1990, p.33.
[18] Misha Kavka, FTVMS 202 lecture, University of Auckland, 7 April, 2005.
[19] Bill Osgerby, Youth Media, London and New York: Routledge, 2004, p.123.
[20] The idea of the ‘female gaze’ is most heavily emphasised in the film during the ‘Olympic athletes training scene’. Dorothy’s song lyrics become increasingly earthy as she, accompanied by a diegetic-audience of female swimmers, watches the muscular bodies of the almost naked male athletes.
[21] Lorelei is very open during the film about the necessity of women being open-eyed about their position in the world and that this is why she intends to marry well.
[22] Alec Foege, ‘The Return of the Dumb Blonde’, Adweek, vol.45, no.9, 1 March 2004, pp.22-24.
[23] Osgerby, pp.122-4.
[24] Tizzy Asher, ‘Girls, sexuality, and popular culture’, Off our Backs, vol. 32, no.5/6, May/June 2002, pp.22-5. Karlyn, pp.69-93.
[25] Hugh H. David, ‘I Was a Teenage Classic: Literary Adaptation in Turn-of-the-Millennium Teen Films’, The Journal Of American Culture, vol. 29, no. 1, March 2006, pp.59-60.
[26] The ‘Riot Grrrl’ phenomenon of the 1990s was spearheaded by all-female rock bands such as Bikini Kill. Many of the bands were self-consciously feminist; they advocated women’s rights and personal empowerment. One of their motifs was requiring female-only mosh pits at their concerts, Club Skunk is an acknowledgement of this, and these bands, in 10 Things I Hate About You.
Osgerby, p.122.
Michael D Friedman, ‘The feminist as shrew in 10 Things I Hate about you’, Shakespeare Bulletin, vol. 22, no.2, Summer 2004, pp.45-65.
[27] Friedman, pp.45-65.
[28]William Shakespeare, The Taming of the Shrew, (ed.) Stephen Orgel, New York: Penguin Group, 2000. Academic arguments relating to the portrayal of Katherina are covered well in: Margaret Jane Kidnie, ‘Chapter 6: Critical Assessment’, The Taming of the Shrew: a guide to the text and its theatrical life, London: Palgrave MacMillan, 2006, pp.146-162.
[29] Friedman, pp.45-65.
[30] Ibid. pp.45-65.
[31] Kidnie, pp.147-8.
[32] [The yellow banner on the wall of Mr Morgan’s English class reads: “What is popular is not always right; what is right is not always popular.”]
Monique L. Pittman, ‘Taming 10 Things I Hate About You: Shakespeare and the Teenage Film Audience’, Literature/Film Quarterly, vol.32, no.2, 2004, pp.144-52.
[33] Unlike Kat, Bianca consciously chooses which men she wishes to have in her life and actively pursues them, whereas Kat is the object of Patrick’s aggressive drive and boyish charm. Bianca turns Cameron’s interest in her to her advantage by convincing him to find someone willing to date Kat, as this would then allow her to pursue and date Joey. Bianca’s self-awareness allows her to gain dominance in her relationships with young men and this assertion of her feminine power continues to the end of the film, when she righteously punches Joey at the prom.
[34] Melissa Klein, ‘Duality and Redefinition: Young Feminism and the Alternative Music Community’, Third Wave Agenda: Being Feminist, Doing Feminism, (eds.) Leslie Heywood and Jennifer Drake, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 1997, pp.207-8, in: Michael D. Friedman, ‘The feminist as shrew in 10 Things I Hate about you’, Shakespeare Bulletin, vol. 22, no.2, Summer 2004, pp.45-65.
[35] See for instance her interactions with the boutique assistant, her father and her guidance counsellor.
[36] When Elle considers giving up law school it is because she is tired of having to fight so hard for her people to see her as a person rather than a pretty face. “All people see when they look at me is blonde hair and big boobs. No-one’s ever going to take me seriously…Callahan never saw me as a lawyer, just as a piece of ass. Just like everybody else.” Elle’s frustration and Professor Stromwell’s assessment of Callahan condemn this kind of superficiality.
[37] Despite Elle’s 4.0 grade average and 179 on her LSATs, Warren can’t shake his view of her as a dumb blonde, a ‘Marilyn [Monroe] rather than a Jackie [Kennedy]’.
[38] Kelly A. Marsh, Dead Husbands and Other “Girls’ Stuff”: The Trifles in Legally Blonde, Literature/Film Quarterly, vol.33, no.3, 2005, pp.201-206.
[39] Their friendship contains a playfulness reminiscent of Bringing Up Baby, for instance when Elle teases Emmett on the way to the day spa, and this sense of camaraderie is supported by a mutual respect for the other’s intelligence. Emmett consistently encourages her in the film and is supportive of her career aspirations; he is the first to reassure her that she earned her internship due to her intelligence and not her appearance.
[40] Elle’s pleasure in fashion and her appearance are indicated throughout the film. Her shocked refusal of Professor Callahan’s sexual advances and her subsequent disgusted discussion of them
[41] On Elle’s first day, Professor Stromwell asks her to leave the class for not being prepared; on Elle’s final day it is Professor Stromwell who proudly introduces her as keynote speaker. When Elle’s despair prompts her to leave Harvard Law School, it is Professor Stromwell, also receiving a manicure, who convinces her to stay.

Alfred Street to close

2006-10-09T09:48:00.000+13:00

After many, many years of campaigning and negotiations, Alfred Street will be closed to traffic at the end of this year [bar buses]. It's fantastic in terms of health & safety because it really is predominantly a student thoroughfare. It's kind of sad to see it go though and I imagine it will prove as annoying to drivers as it will satisfying to students. A) Because it means you get stuck having to do a really big loop of the block when looking for parking or dropping people off, B) that's a chunk of parking for the Maidment gone (which sucks as parking at uni just keeps getting worse; trying to go play squash at the gym at night is a nightmare!), C) we students do love that 10min and bus zone parking in front of the library... sure it's illegal but there's crap all buses at night and it's extensively used by people who only need to stop for a few minutes to pick someone up or to drop off a pile of books.

2006-10-07T13:39:00.000+13:00

And also from the land of the odd...According to the website the ring warms up the day before your anniversary; it gets hot for ten seconds every damn hour just to make sure you get the point. They're marketing angle is that "It's like a handgun...its better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it." What to get for the guy who has everything huh? Lol :P

2006-10-07T13:35:00.000+13:00

Americans truly worry me sometimes...

The Empress

2006-10-05T18:31:00.000+13:00

I was checking out Mira's blog and decided to do the test she'd linked to, *g* I got the same result as her.

You scored as III - The Empress.

The Empress is a maternal symbol. She is the mother figure who loves, nurtures and protects. She will protect you, she will always be there when you are in trouble. When you fall over and graze your knee, the Empress will kiss it better. Yet she is not a weak figure. Her compassion is strength. If her children are threatened she will stop at nothing to protect them. If well aspected in a Tarot spread, the Empress can symbolise security, protection and unconditional love. If badly aspected it can represent over-protectiveness, fear of risk taking and refusal to face the real world.
var img_str1="";img_str1="";
var result_str1="";

III - The Empress 100%
VI: The Lovers 81%
XI: Justice 69%
IV - The Emperor 63%
II - The High Priestess 63%
I - Magician 63%
0 - The Fool 50%
XIII: Death 50%
XIX: The Sun 50%
X - Wheel of Fortune 50%
XV: The Devil 38%
VIII - Strength 38%
XVI: The Tower 25%

2006-10-05T18:24:00.000+13:00

My resolution's plac'd, and I have nothing
Of woman in me; now from head to foot
I am marble-constant, now the fleeting moon
No planet is of mine.

Antony and Cleopatra V.ii. 290-293.

2006-10-05T14:45:00.000+13:00

Yay!! My blog is now one year old :)

The Quest for the Holy Grail

2006-10-04T08:27:00.000+13:00

Centuries have passed since someone sat down and began the opening lines of the medieval French text, The Quest for the Holy Grail, yet the themes that it explores continue to fascinate audiences today.[1] While the Grail itself has been the focus of many texts, the Quest looks beyond the Grail to also consider the wider context in which the quest takes place. It makes use of the romance genre and Arthurian literary tradition to allow it to function as a text intended for entertainment and relaxation. However, at the same time it provokes critical thought and is used as a vehicle for societal critique and spiritual instruction. Although the Arthurian romances were set in an idealized past, the chivalric ideals and courtly society in which they were set clearly linked them to the society and time period in which their writers and contemporary audiences were themselves situated. This allowed writers to use the distancing qualities of fantasy to discuss contemporary issues with greater freedom. In the Quest one of the key issues that is addressed is the issue of violence in society, where violence was a defining characteristic of the patriarchal ruling class. The author’s treatment of violence, the values that they choose to endorse and the narrative tensions that they explore make the Quest significantly different to other medieval romances. The Quest encourages its courtly audience to reconsider the values that are familiar to it and to question whether they truly understand what it means to be a true and gentil knight.[2]

The Quest for the Holy Grail was written in France in the early thirteenth century; narrative links to other texts in the group commonly known as the ‘Vulgate Cycle’ indicate that it was most likely finished between 1215-1235 A.D.[3] In the Quest the knights frequently encounter holy men living austere lives of prayer and meditation;[4] the simplicity of their lives and their white garb indicates that they represent the Cistercian order, of which the unknown author was probably a member.[5] The Cistercians arose as a religious order in 1098; they were a reform movement protesting against the perceived worldliness of the Benedictines.[6] The Cistercians hoped to return to a stricter observance of the Benedictine rule. Their order emphasised asceticism, confession, prayer, fasting and chastity; all of these are virtues that are repeatedly exemplified in the Quest.[7] By the thirteenth century, the Cistercians had become a great monastic force and achieved a high level of popularity.[8] However, thanks to the twin virtues of austere living and hard work, they too had accumulated a great deal of wealth and their spiritual simplicity had begun to be corrupted as their lifestyle became more relaxed.[9] The Quest is written during a period when many Cistercians may again have been seeking spiritual renewal and would have seen a need to promote the values of their order. A story written for the French courts would ensure that their message could hope to reach, instruct, and renew the faith of both the priests and those that they were meant to teach.[10]

A text written in purely religious format might not be greeted with the same level of enthusiasm as those of a more entertaining nature; therefore, the Quest forms its didactic elements within a romance narrative. The romance had become an immensely popular narrative form, especially in northern France and Anglo-Norman England, by the end of the twelfth century.[11] These romances were expected to entertain an aristocratic audience and in order to flatter the nobility they needed to reflect a desirable self-image. The values of the nobility still revolved heavily around warfare and martial skill; there was, however, also a move towards creating a courtly culture that valued etiquette, cultured elegance, chivalry, courtesy and largesse.[12] The romances therefore promoted an idealised, favourable image of the nobility and these were often set in a romanticised past. The Arthurian legends provided a setting for many of these romances that allowed them to indulge the wish-fulfilment fantasies of their audience, such as the desires of younger sons to marry beautiful, rich, land owning women or to engage in passionate, illicit love affairs, while having the safety of being set in the past and, to some extent, in a fantasy realm.[13]

Despite being fantasy, the Arthurian romances contained narrative tensions that alluded to social concerns of their courtly audiences. These narrative tensions usually revolved around gender relations and conflicting loyalties, as the male protagonist sought to reconcile contradictory societal expectations of his behaviour.[14] On the one hand, their loyalty should be first to their kinsmen and lords, they should be able to support and defend their family, and they should be valiant in battle and display their martial skills whenever an opportunity arose. On the other hand, the romances often portray the men as subjugating themselves, and their loyalties, to a woman rather than their kinsmen or lord,[15] as receiving their wealth from a woman,[16]and as retiring from fighting or fighting badly because of a woman.[17] In these romances, the narratives explore whether love is an ennobling or emasculating emotion and they playfully invert gender roles in order to flatter women and safely indulge male fantasies. The Quest, however, reveals the inadequacies and dangers of these flattering fantasies by portraying them as focussing on the temporal world and as pandering to human pride. The Quest emphasises, for instance, that a man’s martial skills should be used in the service of God, rather than to gain the acclaim of his fellows or the attention of a woman.

The Quest, however, doesn’t focus on the conflict between love for a woman and the expectations of a society traditionally orientated around male-bonds; instead, it focuses on the conflict between the expectations of society and one’s love for God. For instance, Bors is tested when he has to decide between saving his brother from being beaten and saving a maiden who is being kidnapped with the intention of rape.[18] He should help Lionel in the name of kinship but the maiden asks for aid in the name of God; Bors chooses, correctly, to save the girl.[19] In order to be ‘knights of heaven’ the Quest indicates that they must transcend feudal loyalties by serving God as their first priority. The text suggests that without a strong spiritual foundation that sets loyalty to the ‘King of heaven’ above all else, secular power hierarchies are doomed to corruption and failure. This is clearly illustrated in Gawain’s meadow dream, symbolic of the Round Table.[20] It is also dramatically emphasised by Lionel’s violent rage at Bors abandoning him.[21] Lionel represents the earthly knights whose ‘eyes and hearts are choked’ and who are ‘enwrapped in black and hideous sin’;[22] he is so blinded by the prideful, martial values of the court that he is willing to murder a kinsman, a brother-in-arms, and a holy man.[23] Bors, on the other hand, is shown as one of the righteous knights of heaven. His refusal to fight, because it would be a sin to strike his brother, is not shown as cowardly but rather as illustrating exemplary moral and spiritual strength, and is rewarded by God actively ending the conflict when Bors finally picks up a sword.[24]

This divine approval of Bors’ refusal to fight, when he considers it to be an affront to God to do so, is one way in which the Quest inverts the values traditionally associated with knights in the romances. These values require them to continually prove their masculine strength, valour and prowess, as well as their attractiveness to women. The writer of the Quest embeds their spiritual teachings in an Arthurian romance, in a courtly setting that reflects the aspirations of a their intended audience, so that the values of these romances, and by inference the nobility, can be shown to be misplaced. For instance, Melias, son of the King of Denmark, stubbornly ignores Galahad’s advice when they come to a warning sign at a forked road; he insists on taking the more perilous route for himself because he wishes to prove his knightly virtues.[25] The text shows that actions and intentions are more important than noble birth; Melias’s presumptuous deeds leave him badly injured. The monks who attend him advise that his focus on the temporal world has led him to the mortal sins of pride and covetousness.[26] The association of the court and knightly values with corruption and sin is marked through the book. Gawain and Hector are warned that the fellowship of the Round Table has become corrupted with lechery, pride, and knights who wallow in dissolute lifestyles.[27] Lancelot is shown not as a hero but as a fallen sinner who must repent and seek God’s grace. Like Gawain, Lancelot had enjoyed the ‘sweet and honeyed’ vices that the Devil and the court lauded but which disguised lust, vanity and pride.[28] The prideful self-love of the knights is illustrated in the warnings they receive that they have more faith in their sword-arm than in God, and that their reasons for fighting are to gain personal glory or the love of women, rather than to serve and honour God.[29]

Its consideration of violence, in the life of a Christian knight, is one aspect that particularly differentiates the Quest from other romances. It provides its audience with numerous tournaments and exciting combats but the elucidating teachings of the holy men the characters frequently encounter provokes the audience to reconsider the purpose of violence in society. In medieval romances violence is often glorified; knights are expected to participate in tournaments and gain renown through great martial deeds lest they be called cowards.[30] However, this expectation that knights will engage in violence is presented in the Quest as the knights being overly eager to do battle and losing sight of why they are fighting. When Gawain meets Hector on the road he informs him, with a mixture of boredom and pride, that he has slain more than ten knights, offering no moral contextualization or justification of these deaths. [31] The danger of this casual embrace of violence is illustrated in the eagerness of Gawain and Hector to fight to the death an unknown knight they encounter in their travels.[32] It is only after Gawain has mortally wounded him that he discovers he is responsible for killing Owein the Bastard, a fellow knight of the Round Table.[33] Gawain’s attitude towards violence and his willingness to take life is strongly reprimanded twice by holy men. He is advised that he should not sinfully seek the “murder of men or the slaying of knights”; rather, he should turn from violence and seek to reconcile himself with God.[34]

The unthinking violence of Gawain and of Lionel marks them as sinners and worthy of the rebuke, which a monk makes to Gawain, “You are a bad and faithless servant.”[35] In contrast, Galahad is named as a paragon of virtue, an example of valour and hardihood, and “a very model of knighthood.”[36] His value system differs from that of Gawain and Lionel and one way that this is illustrated is through his attitude towards violence. Galahad isn’t shown as seeing violence as an end in itself or as a way of acquiring personal glory, in fact he discreetly slips away from one tournament to avoid receiving accolades for his martial prowess.[37] Instead, Galahad fights when it is required as part of his service to God. He fights to protect those who are weak or unable to defend themselves, such as a wounded Melias, or Perceval’s sister, and he fights to defend himself.[38] Moreover, whenever possible he ‘overcomes his opponents without destroying them’.[39] God’s mercy is an important theme in the Quest and Galahad reflects this theme in his combat.[40] He will continue a fight or pursuit until he is convinced that what he is protecting is no longer threatened, but he is shown as considering violence to be defensive rather than aggressive.[41] When his opponent yields or flees, Galahad allows them to live to give them the opportunity to repent and atone to God for their sins.[42] That life is valuable is emphasised by Galahad’s misery at the Castle of Carcelois. Galahad’s party are attacked first, outnumbered and allow those who flee to escape.[43] Nevertheless, he is dismayed when he realizes how many have been killed in the fighting. A Cistercian priest goes to great lengths to reassure him that what he has done was correct in God’s sight. The priest explains that the inhabitants were not Christians, that they were even worse than the Saracens and infidels, and gives a lengthy list of their wicked deeds and acts against the Church.[44]

The importance of defining appropriate uses of violence was of particular relevance to the time in which the Quest was written. Despite the romantic images surrounding the medieval conception of the knight, they were essentially warriors and, primarily, more interested in defending and expanding their own estates than protecting the Church and society.[45] Instead, it was typically the peasants and the Church who suffered most during private warfare; it was those who worked or prayed who most commonly lost their lives and property.[46] In the Quest a holy man informs Gawain that the purpose of knights is to serve God, defend the Holy Church, and safe-keep their souls.[47] This rebuke, like others in the Quest, reminds the audience about the gap between reality and the ideal promoted by the Church. Although the Church could promote ideals such as the ‘Peace of God’, prohibiting warfare against non-combatants and their property, and the ‘Truce of God’, banning warfare during holy days, translating these into a common reality was far more difficult.[48]

The glorification and romanticisation of violence was further inflamed in medieval society by the Crusades;[49] yet the Church actively supported these. Instead of having to do penance for their acts of violence knights now had the opportunity to achieve salvation through them, as successive popes offered a full remission of sins if they fought to reclaim the lands of God.[50] The Church’s justification for supporting violence can be found in the records of contemporary chroniclers, such as Baldric of Bourgueil who recorded an account of Pope Urban II’s announcement of the First Crusade in 1095.[51] This speech condemns knights for their pride, their violent ways and their readiness to butcher their brethren in the fellowship of Christ.[52] Pope Urban II declares that it is “a lesser evil to brandish the sword against the Saracens” and that it is a holy and just cause to unite in saving both their fellow Christians and the holy city of Jerusalem from “pagan tyranny”.[53] Unfortunately, although some undoubtedly went on campaign out of genuine piety, many went to garner lands, wealth and renown for themselves.[54] The Fourth Crusade (1201-4) never even reached the Holy Land; their adventures saw them excommunicated and extremely wealthy after they’d engaged in warfare and pillaging against the Christian inhabitants of Hungary and Constantinople.[55] It is understandable, therefore, that when the Quest was written, the Cistercian author was gravely concerned that the nobility had lost sight of fighting for God and instead come to casually consider violence as a means of increasing personal fortune and renown.

The peaceful holy men present in the Quest, and the values that they express, are a stark contrast to the earthly knights that they teach.[56] They represent the clarity of vision, surety of self and learned wisdom that the knights often lack, for instance when they require interpretation of their dreams or events that have befallen them.[57] These holy figures represent self-contained, content and peaceful lives that are the result of embracing the Cistercian values of chastity, asceticism and meditative prayer.[58] Moreover, the alternative lifestyle that they represent is shown as attainable. The Quest advises that several of these teachers and healers once lived as Arthur’s knights did but voluntarily gave up their wealth and turned away from the materialism, pride and violence of a knightly life.[59] This is portrayed as the kind of life that the knights should be seeking, and some of them, such as Perceval, do choose to embrace it.[60] However, if they choose to remain in the in the secular world of King Arthur’s court, as Bors does, then these holy men act as guides to teach them what a knight should truly value. [61]

Constance Bouchard argues that the spiritual outlook of the Church and the secular, militant focus of the nobility were ultimately incompatible and resistant to attempts to unify them.[62] However, the Quest reveals that, in fiction at least, it was possible to resolve the conflict between these two lifestyles. Three of the knights are considered truly worthy of the Grail, of these Galahad ascends to heaven and Perceval takes on the religious habit but Bors remains part of the courtly, secular world as an example of a ‘knight of heaven’.[63] The narrative of the Quest is placed in an Arthurian romance so that the conventions traditionally associated with this courtly, secular setting can be inverted and de-familiarised to the audience. The pleasures of these texts, that reflect the aspirations of their readers, are shown not to be virtues but rather vices, such as lust, pride and covetousness. The societal equation of knighthood with violence and death is condemned and shown to be dangerous, for instance both Gawain and Lionel threaten the stability of the Round Table’s fellowship with their desire for combat. The Quest offers an alternative view of knighthood, one that is based on compassion, humility and honouring God. Violence is not shown as an end in itself but rather as something that is to be used only when necessary, to protect oneself or to defend those incapable of defending themselves. This emphasis on combat having a defensive focus is shown not as weakness or a lack of martial prowess but rather as a generosity of spirit that reflects the grace of God and the importance placed on allowing opportunities for repentance.[64] While they must have been aware that many who read the text would react as Gawain did, entrenched in their sins and unwilling to listen to counsel, the author of the Quest must have hoped that some would struggle towards redemption, as Lancelot does, or serve, like Bors, as an example of a godly knight.[65]

[1] Modern texts have included Monty Python and the Holy Grail, Terry Gwilliam and Terry Jones (dir.), Sony Pictures, 1999 [DVD], film release date 1975; Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Steven Spielberg (dir.), Paramount Home Entertainment, 1999, film release date 1989; Dan Brown, The Da Vinci code, New York, 2004.
[2] Gentil means noble but also carries wider connotations of nobility of birth, nobility of character, courtesy and honour.
[3] The five French texts composing the Vulgate Cycle are the Estoire del Saint Graal (The History of the Holy Grail), the Estoire d’Merlin (The History of Merlin), the Lancelot Propre (The Lancelot Proper), the Queste du Saint Graal (The Quest of the Holy Grail), and the Mort Artu (The Death of Arthur). Tracey Adams, ENGLISH 340 lecture, University of Auckland, 31 July 2006.
[4] There at least twenty-five encounters mentioned in the Grail with holy figures such as hermits, monks, anchorites and nuns.
[5] The Quest for the Holy Grail, trans. and introduction by P. M. Matarasso, London, 1969, reprint 2005, p.21.
The only times that the garb of the holy figures is described it is always white; see, for instance, pp.53, 119, 136-7, 195, 240, 268. The only exception is the black-garbed priest who appears to Bors as he searches for Lionel and whom he discovers, subsequently, to have been the Devil in disguise, pp.190-194.
[6] C. Warren Hollister, Medieval Europe: a short history, 6th ed., New York, 1990, p.193.
Quest, Matarasso, p.20.
[7] Quest, Matarasso, p.21.
[8] Hollister, p.193.
[9] Ibid. p.194.
[10] By the thirteenth century young nobles were expected to spend many hours on the practice fields, training for combat, however, they were also expected to spend a large number of hours studying with priests for their spiritual welfare and to learn appropriate moral and social behaviour.
Constance Brittain Bouchard, Strong of body, brave and noble: chivalry and society in Medieval France, Ithaca, 1998, p.111.
[11] Linda M. Paterson, The world of the troubadours: medieval Occitan society, c.1100-1300, Cambridge, 1993, p. 63-5. Pamela Porter, Courtly love in medieval manuscripts, London, 2003, pp.28-9, 41.
[12] Sandra Resnick Alfonsi, Masculine submission in troubadour lyric, New York, 1986, pp.38-41.
Joachim Bumke, Courtly Culture: Literature and Society in the High Middle Ages, Woodstock, 2000, pp.311-2.
[13] E. Jane Burns, Courtly love undressed: reading through clothes in medieval French culture, Philadelphia, 2002, p.42. Frederick Goldin, ‘The array of perspectives in the early courtly love lyric’, in Joan M. Ferrant and George D. Economou [et al.], (eds.), In pursuit of perfection: courtly love in medieval literature, Port Washington, 1975, p.55. Bouchard, pp.133-4. Bumke, pp.311-2, 326.
[14] Bouchard, p.113.
[15] Such as in Tristan and Isolde where the narrative tension relies on the tension between Tristan’s adulterous love for Isolde and the loyalty he owes to King Mark, both as a kinsman and as a vassal. Ibid. p.114.
Similarly, in Chrétien’s Knight of the Cart, Lancelot adulterously loves Queen Guinevere despite his place in King Arthur’s fellowship. Chrétien de Troyes, The Knight of the Cart, trans. Burton Raffel and afterword by Joseph J. Duggan, New Haven, 1997.
[16] For instance, in the tale of Sir Launfal, his fortunes are restored and vastly increased by the gifts he receives from Dame Triamoure. Thomas Chestre, ‘Sir Launfal’, in: Donald B. Sands, ed., Middle English verse romances, New York, 1966, pp.201-232.
[17]For instance, Gawain giving up jousting out of his love for Dame Ragnell, or Lancelot fighting badly because Guinevere wishes it. Respectively: ‘The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnell’, in: Donald B. Sands, ed., Middle English verse romances, New York, 1966, pp.345-6; de Troyes, The Knight of the Cart, pp.178-180.
[18] Quest, Matarasso, pp.187-8.
[19] Bors is later advised by an abbot that he was right to “set natural love aside” in order to show love and obedience to the “King of heaven.” Ibid. pp.188, 198-9.
[20] Ibid. pp.166-168, 170-4.
[21] Ibid. pp.200-5.
[22] Ibid. p.159.
[23] Lionel murders a hermit and Sir Calogrenant for protecting Bors while Lionel attempts to murder him. Ibid. p.159.
[24] Bors’ prayers and his unwillingness to sin by striking his brother are rewarded by God sending first the hermit and Sir Calogrenant to protect him; then by sending a ball of fire from heaven that stuns Lionel and Bors. Ibid. pp.202-5.
[25] Ibid. pp.65-6.
[26] Ibid. pp.70-1.
[27] Ibid. pp.79, 170-4.
[28] Ibid. pp. 85-6, 88-93, 134, 142-3.
[29] Ibid. pp.42, 71, 89, 143-4, 159-60, 260.
[30] For instance, Gawain is called a coward when he gives up jousting at the end of the romance, ‘The Wedding of Sir Gawain and Dame Ragnell’, op. cit., pp.345-6.
[31] Quest, Matarasso, p.162.
[32] Ibid. pp.166-7.
[33] Ibid. pp.168.
[34] Gawain is reprimanded the first time for killing the seven brothers who had been holding the Castle of the Maidens. The second reprimand is at the hermitage where Gawain and Hector seek an explanation for their dreams. Ibid. pp.79, 174-5.
[35] This rebuke acts as a scriptural reference to Matthew 25, where those who have served their Master [God] well are praised with “Well done, you good and faithful servant!” but those who have failed will be told “Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.” ‘Matthew 25, verses 21 and 41,’ in: The NIV Study Bible, Kenneth Barker, ed., Grand Rapids, 1995, pp.1476-7.
[36]Quest, Matarasso, pp.77, 134.
[37] Ibid. p.208.
[38] Ibid. pp.68, 239, 246-7.
[39] Ibid. p.79.
[40] “For the Scriptures state that there is none so wicked but Our Lord will have mercy on him, provided that he implore Him with a contrite heart.” Ibid. p.80.
[41] Ibid. pp.73-6, 108, 208.
[42] Ibid. pp.79, 240.
[43] Ibid. pp.239-40.
[44] Ibid. pp.240-1.
[45] Hollister, p.156.
[46] Ibid. p.156.
[47] Quest, Matarasso, p.79.
[48] Hollister, p.178.
The Church met with even less success in its condemnation of tournaments, which it felt encouraged vices, endangered souls and risked the meaningless loss of life or limb. Bouchard, pp.123-5
[49] The Crusades were a series of holy wars chiefly fought during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Those that are best known today were the attempts by Christian nations of Western Europe to take and hold Jerusalem; however, as time passed the focus shifted from Jerusalem itself to the perceived threat to Christendom of the Muslim empire. The Crusades also involved other campaigns that had been approved by the Church, such as the attempts to regain territorial control in Spain from the Muslims or the war on heretics in France (the Albigsenian Crusade).
For further information see Hollister, pp.170-186, 196-7;or: Riley-Smith, Jonathan, What were the Crusades?, London, 1992.
[50] Hollister, pp.178-9. Bernard Hamilton, Religion in the Medieval West, London, 1986, p.130.
[51] Baldric was prior and abbot of Saint-Pierre-de-Bourgueil from 1089 to 1107 and he attended the Council of Clermont in 1095. He is one of four contemporary chroniclers whose version of Pope Urban II’s sermon has survived. Baldric of Bourgueil, ‘Account of the preaching of the First Crusade’, in: Louise and Jonathan Riley-Smith, The Crusades: Idea and Reality, 1095-1274, London, 1981, p.49.
[52] Ibid. p.51.
[53] Ibid. pp.49-52.
[54] Hollister, p.178.
[55] Ibid. p.181-2.
[56] I have chosen to use the phrase ‘holy men’ to refer to the monks and anchorites met by the knights during The Quest for the Holy Grail due to linguistic ease, as it is a common English phrase, and because the society in which the Quest was written was dominated by men. However, this catchphrase does inadvertently elide the presence of ‘holy women’ in the text, such as the nuns who raised Galahad or Perceval’s aunt whom he encounters after she has become an anchoress.
Quest, Matarasso, pp.32, 96.
[57] For instance: Ibid. pp.70-1, 78-80, 87-94, 121-124, 150-4, 158-60.
[58] “…I am she who was once called the Queen of the Waste Land…I was one of the richest ladies in the world. And yet those riches never pleased nor became me as well as does my present poverty.”
Ibid. p.96.
[59] Ibid. p.69, 96, 138, 209.
[60] Ibid. p.284.
[61] Ibid. pp.79 and 284.
[62] Bouchard, pp.121-2.
[63] The contrast between the ‘earthly knights’ and the ‘knights of heaven’ is explained to Lancelot by an anchoress. Quest, Matarasso, pp.158-9.
[64] Andrea Williams comments that in the Quest there is always scope for reform and redemption; this is echoed in the words of the Quest’s holy figures who state that God’s mercy is available to all who penitently request it. Andrea M. L. Williams, The Adventures of the Holy Grail. A study of La Queste del Saint Graal, Bern, 2001, p.73. Quest, Matarasso, p.80.
[65] Gawain decides that penance is too hard, is too busy at one point to listen to the advice of a holy man, and the final mention of him is Lancelot’s grief at discovering that Gawain has slain King Baudemagus. Although he is encouraged to turn to God, his refusal to repent marks him as a determined sinner. Quest, Matarasso, pp.80, 175, 268.
Lancelot is an example of the sinner who strives towards God but definitely struggles along the way. One example of this is his time in Castle Corbenic where he does get to see the Grail, but is also rebuked twice by God. However, his insistence on continuing to wear his hair-shirt indicates his desire to continue seeking to become a godly knight. Ibid. pp.260-5.

Horror Movies - do it!

2006-10-03T15:22:00.000+13:00

There's a really cool game on the M&M site that I highly recommend. It's a gorgeous, interactive picture, and you have to identify and solve the visual riddles to name all 50 movies [and one tv series] referenced in the image. Me, Anna and Benn spent ages on Sunday sitting round a screen trying to pick them! If you get stuck, I found a forum post listing the films here.

Essays

2006-10-03T15:05:00.000+13:00

(The ads on my bog are for stress relief - that's so appropriate!). Yay! I've spent the day working on my essay, rewriting parts and completely rearranging some of the paragraphs. All of the footnotes etc... have been corrected and the formatting done. Now I'm just waiting for Nick to do a final read through (so grateful) to check that the new version still flows well and then, hopefully, I can hand it in tomorrow!! I also need to go see my other two lecturers and plead for extensions on my other two assignments as my Grail essay has taken slightly longer than I'd anticipated. Also, I completely changed what topic I was going to do for Adolescent Fiction which means I have to start from scratch!

Thank you Nick

2006-10-03T12:10:00.000+13:00

I just wanted to take a moment to thank my partner for all the help he's given me recently. I'm stressed to the nines over the ten thousand odd words that I have due in the next week or so and he he's made a huge difference. I know that all editorial assistance he's given me will make a huge difference and he's helped me find ways to rearrange my words and ideas so that they just sound better. I know that the best thank you would be a shiny new porsche outside the house but until I win lotto (or become a criminal mastermind) know that the thought is there and that I'm truly grateful. Love, N.

2006-09-29T15:57:00.000+12:00

The Fountain

2006-09-29T15:56:00.001+12:00

Aotea Square

2006-09-29T15:56:00.000+12:00

After the graduation

2006-09-28T12:30:00.000+12:00

Aotea Square

2006-09-28T12:29:00.000+12:00

Town Hall

2006-09-28T12:25:00.001+12:00

Town Hall

2006-09-28T12:25:00.000+12:00

Town Hall

2006-09-28T12:22:00.000+12:00

Lunch at The Bluestone Room

2006-09-28T12:18:00.000+12:00

Nick's cricket trophies from last summer; they ended up in someones car after their final celebration and have just come back!

Nick's graduation

2006-09-28T11:45:00.000+12:00

Nick's graduation was on Tuesday. I dropped him off in town early to do the processional walk and then zoomed off home to grab a shower and throw half my wardrobe on the floor. It's hard not to feel underdressed next to someone weraing a $1000 suit and regalia :) He looked fantastic. We went out to lunch and then managed to track his parents down amidst the milling throng filling Aotea Square. The ceremony, like most graduation ceremonies, was long and meant clapping far too much (it gets kind of uncomfortable after an hour). It was so awesome to see him up on stage. Congratulations babe :)

We killed time before dinner seeing John Tucker Must Die - go see it as a Tuesday afternoon comedy filler; it's silly and generic but very funny. Don't pay weekend prices for it though!

His parents took his family [and me] out to dinner at Mikano's. It's a bizarre contrast; it's this hugely expensive restaurant that aimed to be situated down by the waterfront, and it is, sort of, but it's effectively in the cargo docks with the police helicopters and launches down below it as well (which was kind of cool as we got to see the 'copter take off). It's one of the highly reccommended restaurants in the Entertainment Guide but not somewhere we'd have gone by ourselves. The entrees alone were around $20~! It was kind of intimidating looking at the menu... It was a lovely place though, fantastic food and great wine, and I really like his family. It was a good night :)

Zero-g surgery

2006-09-28T11:38:00.000+12:00

I'm sure that I was having a discussion about something like this with Anna and Benn on the weekend; good to hear that the doctors are also taking into account the awkwardness of blood leaking out in zero-g...

Doctors remove tumour in first zero-g surgery

15:32 27 September 2006
NewScientist.com news service
New Scientist Space and AFP

French doctors carried out the world's first ever operation on a human in zero gravity on Wednesday, using a specially adapted aircraft to simulate conditions in space.
During a 3-hour flight from Bordeaux in southwest France, the team of surgeons and anaesthetists successfully removed a benign tumour from the forearm of a 46-year-old volunteer.
The experiment was part of a programme backed by the European Space Agency (ESA) to develop techniques for performing robotic surgery aboard the International Space Station or at a future Moon base.
"We weren't trying to perform technical feats but to carry out a feasibility test," said team leader Dominique Martin after the flight. "Now we know that a human being can be operated on in space without too many difficulties."
The custom-designed Airbus 300 aircraft – dubbed Zero-G – performed a series of parabolic swoops, creating about 20 seconds of weightlessness at the top of each curve. The process was repeated 32 times.
Lunar surgeries
Strapped inside a custom-made operating block, three surgeons and two anaesthetists worked during these brief bursts, using magnets to hold their instruments in place around the patient's stretcher.
The patient, Philippe Sanchot, told reporters the operation was "really no big deal", although he said he was lifted "two or three centimetres" off the operating table each time zero gravity kicked in. "There were no surprises because we had rehearsed this over and over."
Martin said the experiment had confirmed that their equipment was suitable for use on board the International Space Station.
"Operating in space is not going to pose a problem – except perhaps for vascular surgery," he said. "We deliberately chose an operation that could be interrupted and where there was no large-scale bleeding, because it only involved surface tissues."
"If we'd had two hours of zero gravity at a stretch, we could have removed an appendix," Martin said.
A similar experiment was carried out in October 2003 but the operation then was to mend a 0.5-millimetre-wide artery in a rat's tail.
The next phase of the programme is to carry out a remote-controlled operation using a robot whose commands are sent from the ground via satellite. This experiment should take place within a year, Martin said.
Anaesthetist Laurent de Coninck said that zero-gravity surgery offered huge promise for space exploration, although at first it would be limited to treating simple injuries.
World space agencies hope that by 2020 a permanently inhabited base can be established on the Moon to conduct research, exploit lunar resources and learn to live off the lunar land. Such a base would also test technologies for voyages to Mars.

Say it ain't so Jackson!!

2006-09-28T11:34:00.000+12:00

The rumours that Peter Jackson's next film was going to be on Halo have been floating around since King Kong finished production. We'd hoped that it was just a cruel rumour, that he wouldn't really sell out his creative genius to create something on a level with DOOM (which was funny but most definitely laughable b-grade) but it seems that the evil rumours were true...

Director Jackson signs Xbox deal
By Darren Waters Technology editor, BBC News website, Barcelona

King Kong director Peter Jackson has agreed a deal with Microsoft to create what he describes as a "new form of interactive entertainment".
The Oscar-winning film-maker said he would be creating a series based on the Halo video game franchise.
"Technology is at a point where we can blend a lot of film storytelling with interactive entertainment," he said.
The series will appear on the Xbox 360 games console and Xbox Live, the machine's online service.
Mr Jackson, who is also producing a movie based on Halo, said the series would not be for hard core gamers.
The surprise announcement was made at the X06 event in Barcelona, at which Microsoft unveiled its line-up of games for the coming 12 months.
Xbox boss Peter Moore also unveiled a HD-DVD, high definition player, for the console, which will be released in Europe in mid November, costing 199 euros (£129).
"We are right on the threshold of a new way of telling stories," said Mr Jackson.
But he admitted his team was at the start of the process and still had to "work out how to do it".
Mr Jackson, who also directed the Lord of the Rings trilogy, will set up an interactive arm of his firm, Wingnut, and will work with Halo creators Bungie Studios to develop the series.
Microsoft also unveiled a further Halo spin-off, called Halo Wars, a real time strategy game based on the popular franchise to be made by Ensemble Studios.

Soccer and more car thefts

2006-09-28T11:26:00.000+12:00

Red team one the top division last round and the prize money took all of the teams out for dinner with more pub food then we actually managed to get through! We moseyed on down to the Y and watched the first team play before heading down to the court for ours. We won again and won our division [C grade]!!! It's fantastic how much the team has improved and we're all in again for the next round. One of the teams had their opposition default so we got to play again :) I even got to play goalkeep for the first time since it was just a friendly match. I wasn't as good as the boys but I didn't suck too badly, I managed to stop more than half of them :P

But then we went outside and discovered that eight of the cars had been smashed into and searched. All sorts of stuff had been taken, thankfully we'd returned Nick's dad's golfclubs to him earlier that afternoon; his grandma's ring, which he'd just discovered in the car a few hours earlier, got taken though, rat bastards. The main police station is just down the rad and we ended up there with another couple to lay a report. I doubt they'll do much though, just add it to the statistics. Which means that the car window has to be replaced, expensive, and now we're faced with the problem of where to park...

Catching up....

2006-09-28T11:01:00.000+12:00

This weekend definitely did not go according to plan... Well, now it's Thursday and I haven't been able to post since our internet connection has been dodgy at best, so I suppose that I should specify that last weekend did not go according to my best intentions. I have about 9,000+ words due in the next two weeks for my final Stage III papers. I've done the research and brainstorming on two of them and loosely decided which essay question I plan to write on for the third. I'd spent the Friday doing ten hours or so of research on the Sankgreal and had kept the weekend nice and free so that I could at least get a crappy first draft written and see some words on paper. Then I get a text from my ex saying that he's just flown into the country for the weekend and can we catch up; I hadn't seen him in a year so of course I said yes. At the same time that I'm texting a reply to him, another text comes through from one of my really good mates asking if I could pick him up from the airport Saturday night and a few minutes later one of my girlfriends is asking if I want to join her and her partner for dinner and a movie saturday night! So Saturday ended up being the presentation (yay Fiji) followed by lunch with Biscuit. It was really nice to catch up; I've missed him a lot lately - hanging out and clowning round and spending the afternoon gaming. I still have to manage to kick his ass on Soul Calibre :P So it was good, and slightly weird and I said I'd see him later that night at his bro's 21st.

Since I only had a few hours to kill, I ended up hanging out with Anna talking shite for the rest of the afternoon. And watching Harold and Kumar go to Whitecastle, damn that was funny. > Airport, dinner, shadowrun planning<
The 21st was funny, there were some truly fantastic photos of Krak as a kid and the macho tetosterone beer tent with his mates chanting at him while he did his yard glass was truly a sight to behold him. Especially since they were then trying to see how many times they could get him to throw up before they brought out the cake. His poor girlfriend was standing by looking dressed up, pretty and slightly shocked as she held his shirt and then tried to find a towel. I could sympathise.

So not a bad day really except... I'd wandered in there with a bag on my back and a big coat on my arm and ended up deciding it would be more comfortable to put them back in the car. Lighted carpark, security guard only a few meters from my car, and I've got a covered boot. There was noone else around when I went out, so I opened the boot and put my bag in there with the coat over it; I also made sure the guard saw me doing so as I wanted to make sure he kept an eye on it.
Twenty minutes later or so we discover that my bag was gone. They'd forced the left lock slightly, ignored the car and hadn't searched it or anything, gone straight to the boot, taken the bag and left everything else that was in there. Oh, and the security guard was nowhere in sight. He claimed that he'd gone to buy some ciggies but one of the guests mentioned he'd had a full pack not long ago as he'd been offered one. Apparently there were some guys drinking out in the park, but that was a long way from the cars and the only person I'd been able to spot when I went to my car was the guard.
I was absolutely distraught. We searched the park, the bins, the river bank (and Nick went back the next morning) but we couldn't find it. It doesn't make sense that they wouldn't just grab the wallet and dump the rest - or dump all of it since there was only about $10 in coins in there.
Sunday ended up being a complete write off - in terms of my essay. I was way upset and it's been hugely time comsuming trying to replace everything. I spent Sunday, all of my time between classes Monday, and Wednesday afternoon having to drive/run etc... all over the place to order cards, pick up cards, buy a new handbag, a wallet, all of my makeup. All up, it's cost about $250 to replace everything, it's going to be another 1-2 weeks before most of the cards arrive and some of my membership cards I just couldn't afford to replace. I'm so pissed off and broke. Which sucks. I was lucky actually that I had enough immediate moolah to cover the losses but the reason for that was that my only pair of sneakers and only pair of jeans are falling apart and need to be replaced in the next few weeks, and I can't work for the next three to five weeks as uni wraps up :(

Accor Holiday Club

2006-09-27T16:13:00.000+12:00

You know how you're walking through the mall and there's the competition (that always seems to be there) where you could win a car/cruise etc.... Well, we were walked past it a few months ago and I decided to enter us. We haven't won a car (so far) but we got a letter inviting us to come in to a presentation. We finally had time on Saturday and got up painfully early to get ready and drive out to Greenlane.
The presentation was well tailored, if a bit obvious in its ploys, and essentially boiled down to this. We were offered the chance to buy into the parent company of a number of hotel chains plus their reciprocal arrangement with hotel chains outside of the Pacific. For a lump sum (and a yearly maintenance fee) you received membership points each year (increasing as the fee does) and can cash these in for hotel stays. The points rollover each year and membership is indefinite. If you die then you can pass it on in your will, as can your kids etc...
Now, by the time its passed through the hands of a few generations then the yearly sum seems quite reasonable and the lump sum is forgotten - the lump sum by the way was about $26,000 for two to four weeks accommodation. You also had the option of booking the rooms and then selling them to someone else.
They had some really nice places but by the time everything was factored in, like the interest on the weekly fee if you used their payment plan, it ended up costing $40,000 over the first ten years. Then you have to factor in a mortgage to pay at some point in those ten years and kids. Then with kids you can't get a studio anymore, you have to get 2 bedroom and go in school holidays - which means that you pay the premier rate and use far more points.
We thanked them kindly for their time and turned them down (as we'd expected to) and walked out with our free hotel voucher (the incentive for showing up) so now we get 4 nights free accom. in a four or five star hotel in Fiji next year :)