The Giuliana Sgrena affair

Unless you've been on vacation to a distant galaxy, you know by now that:
- Giuliana Sgrena is an Italian journalist
- She was kidnapped by terrorists in Iraq
- She was 'rescued' by an Italian intelligence agent
- The agent was shot and killed by US forces outside the Baghdad airport
- Giuliana told a dramatic story of the attack, including 'handfuls of bullets,' armored vehicles, and tanks
- Giuliana has loudly accused the US of 'targeting' her

If you're a little more informed than the average joe, you may also know:
- The Italian government paid a large ransom for her release
- The coalition forces were not informed about the attempt to rescue her
- Her car has just two bullet-holes visible in photos of it
- The windows on her car are still intact

Enough review. Here's what really bothers me about this affair: why did so many people find her story credible?

My initial reaction, even before finding out that the car was relatively undamaged, was that her story just didn't add up. If she'd really been attacked with the force she claimed, she wouldn't have been in one piece, much less survived it. It's implausible on its face that American soldiers would deliberately target a journalist being rescued. My initial take, before any of the evidence started coming in, was that most likely it was a tragic accident, a friendly-fire incident. And that Giuliana was crazy.

Reading the MSM and talking with folks during the week, it quickly became clear that my reaction was not the majority reaction. The MSM was full of comments ranging from completely creduluous reporting of her story as if it were corroborated fact to outrageous commentary implying that this incident "proves" that Eason Jordan was right all along — the U.S. military is targeting journalists.

Now that Giuliana's story is unraveling, even the MSM is reporting on a little more level-headed basis. A little. But what's up with that initial reaction? Why do so many jump on such a hateful, suspicious story and embrace it as if it were a long-lost friend?

I've pondered long and hard on this one, and the only thing I can come up with isn't particularly profound...just human nature at work. I think the most likely explanation is that this story, if you're a member ofthe Bush-bashing angry left and you're willing to suspend disbelief, reinforces your own preconceived notions. In other words, this story is completely consistent with their belief about Bush, so therefore to them it seems likely to be true. It doesn't matter that the details are fishy, or that you'd have to assume evil intent by a randomly selected group of soldiers, or even that visible evidence is contradictory. The story has the "Bush team" exhibiting all the horrible evil things you believe of it, so by gosh it must be true.

I'll instantly forgive the Italians and their press for being suspicious and credulous of Giuliana's story; after all, she's one of them (Italian, I mean). The rest of the world's press, however, was similarly credulous and even more full of vitriol than the self-hating American MSM. But these are the same outlets that are non-stop Bush-bashers, so my theory is not contradicted. It's worth noting that the Italian government and most of the Italian press are amongst the first to regain sobriety. The government, through several officials, has publicly chided Giuliana for "reckless accusations" and "careless talk." Basically they've asked her to shut up. And several Italian newspapers are actively reporting on all the gaping holes in Giuliana's story. And Giuliana changes her story frequently, and it seems the changes are always in the direction of something that sounds more plausible to me.

Giuliana, please shut up. Now.

Does anyone have a better idea about why the majority's initial reaction to this story was to believe it? I'd really like to understand this, as I suspect that buried in here somewhere is an important insight into the liberal mindset...

Quote for the day

There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all.

   Peter Drucker

Dog humor

The Doggy Dictionary

LEASH: A strap which attaches to your collar, enabling you to lead your person where you want him/her to go.

DOG BED: Any soft, clean surface, such as the white bedspread in the guest room or the newly upholstered couch in the living room.

DROOL: Is what you do when your persons have food and you don't. To do this properly you must sit as close as you can and look sad and let the drool fall to the floor, or better yet, on their laps.

SNIFF: A social custom to use when you greet other dogs. Place your nose as close as you can to the other dog's rear end and inhale deeply, repeat several times, or until your person makes you stop.

GARBAGE CAN: A container which your neighbors put out once a week to test your ingenuity. You must stand on your hind legs and try to push the lid off with your nose. If you do it right you are rewarded with margarine wrappers to shred, beef bones to consume and moldy crusts of bread.

BICYCLES: Two-wheeled exercise machines, invented for dogs to control body fat. To get maximum aerobic benefit, you must hide behind a bush and dash out, bark loudly and run alongside for a few yards; the person then swerves and falls into the bushes, and you prance away.

DEAFNESS: This is a malady which affects dogs when their person want them in and they want to stay out. Symptoms include staring blankly at the person, then running in the opposite direction, or lying down.

THUNDER: This is a signal that the world is coming to an end. Humans remain amazingly calm during thunderstorms, so it is necessary to warn them of the danger by trembling uncontrollably, panting, rolling your eyes wildly, and following at their heels.

WASTEBASKET: This is a dog toy filled with paper, envelopes, and old candy wrapper. When you get bored, turn over the basket and strew the papers all over the house until your owner comes home.

SOFAS: Are to dogs like napkins are to people. After eating it is polite to run up and down the front of the sofa and wipe your whiskers clean.

BATH: This is a process by which the humans drench the floor, walls and themselves. You can help by shaking vigorously and frequently.

LEAN: Every good dog’s response to the command "sit!", especially if your person is dressed for an evening out. Incredibly effective before black-tie events.

BUMP: The best way to get your human's attention when they are drinking a fresh cup of coffee or tea.

GOOSE BUMP: A maneuver to use as a last resort when the Regular Bump doesn't get the attention you require... especially effective when combined with The Sniff. See above.

LOVE: Is a feeling of intense affection, given freely and without restriction. The best way you can show your love is to wag your tail. If you're lucky, a human will love you in return.

Dog show humor

EVERYTHING YOU WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT DOG SHOWS

ANGULATION-Degree to which dog handlers will bend over backwards to impress the judges.

BALANCE-How to arrange the checkbook so your spouse won't know how much money you spent on dog shows last month. Usually done in the bathroom with the door locked.

BITCH-(A)Name for a lady dog. (B)Name often overheard at dog shows, not always to describe a lady dog.

COAT-The hairy covering of a dog that usually falls out about one week before the Specialty show.

DAM-(A)A lady dog with children. (B)Expression frequently overheard at dog shows as losers leave the ring.

ELBOW-Method of getting to ringside when late.

EXPRESSION-"Sweet" look adopted by dogs while staring ravenously at chunks of liver.

FANCIER-Degree to which some gentlemen handlers dress more than others.

FEATHERING-What winners are accused of doing to judges' nests.

FRONT-Part of the dog often stacked toward the outside of the ring.

HEEL-(A)What you feel like when your dog beats the one you had just sold to an eager novice. (B)Expression often screamed to attract the attention of deaf dogs.

HEIGHT-As in "Maximum Allowed," a measurement which all champions fall under by AT LEAST 1/8 inch.

HOCK-A way of financing your dog shows by the use of jewelry such as wedding rings.

KENNEL-Where you go when the kids fight and your spouse yells at you.

LITTER-Trash left all over the building and parking lot after a dog show.

MASK-What to wear when you have to show the pet you sold six months ago.

MUZZLE-What to put on your kids at a dog show to prevent them from calling your competition what they overheard you call him last night.

NOSEPRINTS-Cute marks left all over your French doors.

OUTCROSSING-What your spouse tells the minister that you are doing out in the kennel with the dog and the bitch.

POINTS-Minute, invisible awards for winning which you cannot convince your spouse are more important than cash prizes.

PUPPIES-Small, dog like food-processing machines with the ability to stink up an entire house and collectively deafen a band of magpies (These creatures have not yet been perfected, as they come with a leaky system, and can also be dangerous to weak hearts and bank accounts.)

Religious truths

Muslims do not recognize Judaism as a religion.

Jews do not recognize Jesus as the Messiah.

Protestants do not recognize the Pope as the leader of the Christian Faith.

Mormons do not recognize each other in the Liquor store.

Catholic humor

Catholic Dog

Muldoon lived alone in the Irish countryside with only a pet dog for company. One day the dog died, and Muldoon went to the parish priest and asked, Father, me dog is dead. Could ya' be saying' a mass for the poor creature?" Father Patrick replied, "I'm afraid not; we cannot have services for an animal in the church. But there are some Baptists down the lane, and there's no tellin' what they believe. Maybe they'll do something for the creature." Muldoon said, "I'll go right away Father. Do ya' think $5,000 is enough todonate to them for the service?" Father Patrick exclaimed, "Sweet Mary, Mother of Jesus! Why didn`t ya tell me the dog was Catholic?

Donation

Father O'Malley answers the phone, and the caller says "Hello, is this Father O'Malley?"
"It is"
"This is the IRS. Can you help us?"
"I can"
"Do you know a Ted Houlihan?"
"I do"
"Is he a member of your congregation?"
"He is"
"Did he donate $10,000 to the church?"
"He will".

Confession

An elderly man walks into a confessional. The following conversation ensues:
"I am 92 years old, have a wonderful wife of 70 years, many children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren. Yesterday, I picked up two college girls, hitchhiking. We went to a motel, where I had sex with each of them three times."
Priest: "Are you sorry for your sins?"
Man: "What sins?"
Priest: "What kind of a Catholic are you?"
Man: "I'm Jewish."
Priest: "Why are you telling me all this?"
Man: "I'm telling everybody."

Brothel Trip

An elderly man goes into a brothel and tells the madam he would like a young girl for the night. Surprised, she looks at the ancient man and asks how old he is. "I'm 90 years old," he says. "90!" replies the woman. "Don't you realize you've had it?" "Oh, sorry," says the old man. "How much do I owe you?"

Pest Control

A woman was having a passionate affair with an inspector from a pest-control company. One afternoon they were carrying on in the bedroom together when her husband arrived home unexpectedly. "Quick," said the woman to her lover," into the closet!" and she pushed him in the closet, stark naked. The husband, however, became suspicious and after a search of the bedroom discovered the man in the closet. "Who are you?" he asked him. "I'm an inspector from Bugs-B-Gone," said the exterminator. "What are you doing in there?" the husband asked. "I'm investigating a complaint about an infestation of moths," the man replied. And where are your clothes?" asked the husband. The man looked down at himself and said,... "Those little bastards."

Estonia in Iraq

As many of you know, I have a lot of friends in Estonia, made through my 10+ years of working with software development teams there. Several of these friends are interested in world politics, and I have a spotty correspondence with them on such topics. Iraq has been one of the key topics, and by-and-large my Estonian friends' attitude resembles that of our angry left — they're convinced we went into Iraq to get the oil, Bush is stupid, and so on. The familiar rant.

So I've been halfway expecting that they're representative of their country, and that as a result Estonia would withdraw their contingent of soldiers from Iraq. Ah, perhaps you didn't know there were Estonians in Iraq? Been listening to too much TV, or reading the New York Times? The Estonians have been at our side since the invasion. Their numbers are small in absolute terms, to be sure (55 soldiers, currently) — but in relative terms, that's actually a fairly large contingent. In terms of relative populations, that's equivalent to over 1,000 American soldiers — but relative to the sizes of our military forces, the Estonians are actually fielding a higher percentage, as their military forces are quite modest in size, as is befitting the small size of their country.

But as you can see in the news story I've posted in its entirety below, the Estonians are not withdrawing. They've just "re-upped" for another year. Hooray for them! It's possible that my "sample" of friends is not representitive (most of them happen to be ethnic Russians, and they are a minority in Estonia), or it could be that the politicians are simply doing the right thing. Whatever the reason, I applaud the Estonian government for standing tall at our side in Iraq.

TALLINN, March 10 (Itar-Tass) -- The Estonian government has decided to extend for another year the stay of its military contingent in Iraq. This decision has been made in response to the request of the head of the Iraqi interim government and is prompted by the need to continue the process of stabilization and construction of a democratic state in Iraq.

Some 55 Estonian servicemen now stay in the Persian Gulf area. Their stay expires on June 20, 2005. Under the government’s decision there will be 15 men less in the new shift. This reduction in the numerical strength is due to the fact that the Estonian military will no longer handle the cargoes for Iraq arriving at the airfields in Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain.

The government’s decision needs parliament’s endorsement. The decision will most probably be supported by the majority coalition, which holds 58 sets in parliament out of the 101. A considerable part of the opposition has earlier supported the majority on this matter but the number of those opposed to Estonian presence in Iraq has been on the rise of late since two Estonian soldiers were killed in Iraq last year.

Those of you who were conscious before the fall of the Soviet Union might be a little amused by the "TASS" in the dateline. My, how our world has changed!

Lend-Lease

I've always been struck by the political aspects of the Lend-Lease program. Essentially it was a way to put a palatable (politically) face on the need for the U.S. to support Britain and its allies in what we know today as World War II. At the time, the President (Franklin Roosevelt) and a sufficient number of senators and congressmen understood the need well enough to get Lend-Lease passed — but the majority of Americans were dead-set against taking a position in the "European war". In fact there was considerable support for the Germans and Italians, including (sound familiar?) by a panoply of celebrities — "Lucky" Lindbergh and not a few Hollywood stars amongst them.

Until Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt took a lot of heat for having instigated and signed Lend-Lease. On that December 7, however — just like a certain Septemeber 11 sixty years later — public opinion swiveled about and all the public clamor faded away.

It's worth a good ponder about the behavior of societies. Consider that with hindsight Lend-Lease was, quite literally, a life-saver for the Allies of World War II (and that would include the U.S.). Further consider that if it wasn't for the courage and (dare we say it?) arrogance of a single individual — I mean President Roosevelt — it would never have happened. Think about the consequences if it had not happened...many historians believe the outcome of the war might well have been different. We might be living under the swastika-and-stripes, with a rising sun on the side...

Wikipedia has a good introduction to Lend-Lease, for those of you who are not familiar with it.

Quote for the day

Ninety-eight percent of the adults in this country are decent, hard-working, honest Americans. It's the other lousy two percent that get all the publicity. But then - we elected them.

   Lily Tomlin

Smart cat

A man absolutely hated his wife's cat and decided to get rid of him one day by driving him 20 blocks from his home and leaving him at the park. As he was getting home, the cat was walking up the driveway. The next day he decided to drive the cat 40 blocks away. He put the beast out and headed home. Driving back up his driveway, there was the cat! He kept taking the cat further and further and the cat would always beat him home. At last he decided to drive a few miles away, turn right, then left, past the bridge, then right again and another right until he reached what he thought was a safe distance from his home and left the cat there. Hours later the man calls home to his wife: "Jen, is the cat there?" "Yes", the wife answers, "why do you ask?" Frustrated, the man answered, "Put that son of a bitch on the phone, I'm lost and need directions!"

Bush bandwagon

Just knowing there's another Mark Steyn column for me to read is enough to put a smile on my face. Here's how he starts a column that notes the rising chorus of (gasp!) liberals saying "Maybe Bush was right after all...":

Come on, lads. You don’t want to be the last to leap aboard the bandwagon. The New York Times are running front page stories with headlines like “Unexpected Whiff Of Freedom Proves Bracing For The Middle East”. Daniel Schorr, the dean of conventional wisdom at National Public Radio, was for once almost ahead of the game, concluding his most recent editorial with a strange combination of words that had never before passed his lips in that particular order: “Bush may have had it right.”

Did he simply muff the reading? Did he mean to say: “Bush may have had it - right?” But apparently not. Ever since, the same form of words has mysteriously flowered from Toronto to London to Sydney. It’s the catchphrase du jour - like “Show me the money” or “You are the weakest link. Goodbye.” Now it’s “Could Bush be right?” Even America’s media naysayers have suddenly noticed that they can hardly hear their own generic boilerplate about what a Vietnam quagmire the new Iraq is over the sound of raven-tressed Beirut hotties noisily demanding Lebanon’s freedom in the streets of Beirut.

Over at Britain’s Guardian, meanwhile, the poor chaps are desperately trying to give credit to anyone but the reviled Bushitler. Here’s how Timothy Garton Ash opened his disquisition: “Has Osama bin Laden started a revolution in the Middle East?” Well, that’s one way to look at it. Maybe he could share the Nobel Peace Prize with Michael Moore and MoveOn.org.

Quote for the day

Hatred is the coward's revenge for being intimidated.

   George Bernard Shaw

Extraordinary rendition

David Ignatius, writing in the Washington Post, makes some very good points on this topic. The whole column is well worth reading. Here's the way he starts:

Torture is immoral and illegal, and the refusal to allow it is one measure of a civilized society. But this ironclad moral argument doesn't necessarily apply to the practice known as "extraordinary rendition."

Rendition is the CIA's antiseptic term for its practice of sending captured terrorist suspects to other countries for interrogation. Because some of those countries torture prisoners — and because some of the suspected terrorists "rendered" by the CIA say they were, in fact, tortured — the debate has tended to lump rendition and torture together. The implication is that the CIA is sending people to Egypt, Jordan or other Middle Eastern countries because they can be tortured there and coerced into providing information they wouldn't give up otherwise.

The problem with this argument is that it assumes the CIA believes that torture works. But in 30 years of writing about intelligence, I've never encountered a spook who didn't realize that torture is usually counterproductive. Professional intelligence officers know that prisoners will confess to anything under intense pain. Information obtained through torture thus tends to be unreliable, in addition to being immoral.

But in conversations over the past several years with senior CIA officials and the heads of several Arab intelligence services, I've heard explanations for why the practice is used. These arguments for rendition at least ought to be understood, as Congress and the public struggle with the moral issues involved.

What's gained by transferring a prisoner to his home country for interrogation is emotional leverage, according to Arab and American intelligence chiefs. A hardened al Qaeda member often can't be coerced physically into giving up information, no matter how nasty the interrogator. But he may do so if confronted by, say, his mother, father, brother or sister.

In other words, torture doesn't work, the CIA knows it, but they also know that just placing the suspect in his home country can be an effective interrogation tool. That's completely plausible to me. I have no doubt that I'd be much more likely to spill the beans if I were in a prison here, with my wife begging me to talk, than I would if I was in (say) a North Korean prison. Mr. Ignatius concludes with this point:

Before you make an easy judgment about rendition, you have to answer the disturbing question put to me by a former CIA official: Suppose the FBI had captured Mohamed Atta before Sept. 11, 2001. Under U.S. legal rules at the time, the man who plotted the airplane suicide attacks probably could not have been held or interrogated in the United States. Would it have made sense to "render" Atta to a place where he could have been interrogated in a way that might have prevented Sept. 11? That's not a simple question for me to answer, even as I share the conviction that torture is always and everywhere wrong.

An excellent point, Mr. Ignatius.

Mr. Bush's speech

President Bush gave a speech yesterday at the National Defense university. You can (and should!) read it in full. It was a wide-ranging speech, but here are a few points I thought were particularly well made. First, on Lebanon:

And any who doubt the appeal of freedom in the Middle East can look to Lebanon, where the Lebanese people are demanding a free and independent nation. In the words of one Lebanese observer, "Democracy is knocking at the door of this country and, if it's successful in Lebanon, it is going to ring the doors of every Arab regime."

Across the Middle East, a critical mass of events is taking that region in a hopeful new direction. Historic changes have many causes, yet these changes have one factor in common. A businessman in Beirut recently said, "We have removed the mask of fear. We're not afraid anymore." Pervasive fear is the foundation of every dictatorial regime — the prop that holds up all power not based on consent. And when the regime of fear is broken, and the people find their courage and find their voice, democracy is their goal, and tyrants, themselves, have reason to fear.

History is moving quickly, and leaders in the Middle East have important choices to make. The world community, including Russia and Germany and France and Saudi Arabia and the United States has presented the Syrian government with one of those choices — to end its nearly 30-year occupation of Lebanon, or become even more isolated from the world. The Lebanese people have heard the speech by the Syrian president. They've seen these delaying tactics and half-measures before. The time has come for Syria to fully implement Security Council Resolution 1559. All Syrian military forces and intelligence personnel must withdraw before the Lebanese elections, for those elections to be free and fair.

The elections in Lebanon must be fully and carefully monitored by international observers. The Lebanese people have the right to determine their future, free from domination by a foreign power. The Lebanese people have the right to choose their own parliament this spring, free of intimidation. And that new government will have the help of the international community in building sound political, economic, and military institutions, so the great nation of Lebanon can move forward in security and freedom.

Today I have a message for the people of Lebanon: All the world is witnessing your great movement of conscience. Lebanon's future belongs in your hands, and by your courage, Lebanon's future will be in your hands. The American people are on your side. Millions across the earth are on your side. The momentum of freedom is on your side, and freedom will prevail in Lebanon.

On the prospects for a real peace between Israel and the Palestinians:

The bombing in Tel Aviv is a reminder that the fight against terrorists is critical to the search for peace and for Palestinian statehood. In an interview last week, Palestinian President Abbas strongly condemned the terrorist attack in Tel Aviv, declaring, "Ending violence and security chaos is first and foremost a Palestinian interest." He went on to say, "We cannot build the foundations of a state without the rule of law and public order."

President Abbas is correct. And so the United States will help the Palestinian Authority build the security services that current peace and future statehood require: security forces which are effective, responsive to civilian control, and dedicated to fighting terror and upholding the rule of law. We will coordinate with the government of Israel, with neighbors such as Egypt and Jordan, and with other donors to ensure that Palestinians get the training and equipment they need. The United States is determined to help the parties remove obstacles to progress and move forward in practical ways, so we can seize this moment for peace in the Holy Land.

On Iraq's future:

Iraq's democracy, in the long run, must also be defended by Iraqis, themselves. Our goal is to help Iraqi security forces move toward self-reliance, and they are making daily progress. Iraqi forces were the main providers of security at about 5,000 polling places in the January elections. Our coalition is providing equipment and training to the new Iraqi military, yet they bring a spirit all of their own.

Last month, when soldiers of the U.S. 7th Cavalry Regiment were on combat patrol north of Baghdad, one of their Humvees fell into a canal, and Iraqi troops came to their rescue — plunging into the water again and again, until the last American was recovered. The Army colonel in charge of the unit said, "When I saw those Iraqis in the water, fighting to save their American brothers, I saw a glimpse of the future of this country." One of the Iraqi soldiers commented, "These people have come a hundred — 10,000 miles to help my country. They've left their families and their children. If we can give them something back, just a little, we can show our thanks." America is proud to defend freedom in Iraq, and proud to stand with the brave Iraqis as they defend their own freedom.

I watched a video of the speech; not only was it well-written, it was delivered with great skill. I think Mr. Bush's communications skills have been misunderestimated...

Quote for the day

The best computer is a man, and it's the only one that can be mass-produced by unskilled labor.

   Dr. Werner von Braun, upon being asked if computers would replace men in spaceflight

KetchupWoman returns

Just when you thought the world was safe from KetchupWoman, she rises up out of the pickle barrel and utters some more nonsense. Now she's accusing the Republicans of having rigged the 2004 election by hacking the voting machines:

Heinz Kerry is openly skeptical about results from November's election, particularly in sections of the country where optical scanners were used to record votes.

"Two brothers own 80 percent of the machines used in the United States," Heinz Kerry said. She identified both as "hard-right" Republicans. She argued that it is "very easy to hack into the mother machines."

"We in the United States are not a banana republic," added Heinz Kerry. She argued that Democrats should insist on "accountability and transparency" in how votes are tabulated.

"I fear for '06," she said. "I don't trust it the way it is right now."

Please, KetchupWoman — stop the madness! You can find the full article here.

The Old Poodle

A wealthy old lady decides to go on a photo safari in Africa, taking her faithful aged pet poodle along for company. One day the poodle starts chasing butterflies and before long he discovers that he is lost. Wandering about, he notices a leopard heading rapidly in his direction with the obvious intention of having lunch.

The old poodle thinks, "Oh-oh, I'm in deep doo-doo now!" Noticing some bones on the ground close by, he immediately settles down to chew on the bones with his back to the approaching cat. Just as the leopard is about to leap, the old poodle exclaims loudly, "Boy, that was one delicious leopard. I wonder if there are any more around here." Hearing this, the young leopard halts his attack in mid-stride, a look of terror comes over him, and he slinks away into the trees. "Whew", says the leopard, "That was close. That old poodle nearly had me."

Meanwhile, a monkey who had been watching the whole scene from a nearby tree, figures he can put this knowledge to good use and trade it for protection from the leopard. So, off he goes but the old poodle sees him heading after the leopard with great speed, and figures that something must be up. The monkey soon catches up with the leopard, spills the beans and strikes a deal for himself with the leopard. The young leopard is furious at being made a fool of and says, "Here monkey, hop on my back and see what's going to happen to that old conniving canine." Now the old poodle sees the leopard coming with the monkey on his back and thinks, "What am I going to do now?" But, instead of running, the dog sits down with his back to his attackers, pretends he hasn't seen them yet and, just when they get close enough to hear, the old poodle says, "Where's that damn monkey? I sent him off half an hour ago to bring me another leopard!"

Eesti feline

I recently reconnected with Anton (whom I worked with at Previo/Stac), and somehow in the course of our email conversation cats came up. Imagine that!

Anton lives in Tallinn, Estonia.

Click on the picture for a larger version...

The old mule

The old farmer's mule had finally died of old age just before spring planting, so the farmer made a trip to town to buy another mule. His $125 didn't buy much, but he was satisfied with his purchase and he made arrangements to return the next day with a horse trailer to pick up the mule and the dealer agreed to keep it overnight for him.

Early the next day, the old man returned. "Jim," said the mule dealer, "that old mule died last night. I'm real sorry to have to tell you this. I know you were counting on it for your spring garden." The dealer offered Jim his money back, but Jim said a bargain was a bargain, loaded the mule on his truck and left.

A couple of months later the mule dealer happened to drive by Jim's place and was astonished to see Jim working his garden on a *NEW* $4,000 garden tractor. Honking his horn, he called Jim over and asked him how in the world he had managed to buy a tractor when not to long ago all he had was the $125 that he'd spent on the mule that died.

"Well", Jim explains, "After leaving with the mule, I had this idea. So I stopped off at the local print shop and had 2,000 $2 raffle tickets printed up. Grand prize: Gardening Equipment. I sold all the raffle tickets to people around town."

"Yeah, but where did you get the gardening equipment?"

"From you."

"No, I mean the equipment you had as the raffle prize."

"I got it from you."

"Jim, all you got from me was a dead mule."

"I know, that's what I raffled off."

"My Goodness, Jim! You raffled off a dead mule?! I'll bet that really made a lot of people mad when they found out about it."

"Naw, not really, the only one really ticked off was the winner, and I gave him his money back."

He never saw it coming

Mark Steyn's latest column is an even-better-than-usual (and that's a high bar in his case) example of his trademark combination of wit and commentary. Here's my favorite bit, talking about Bashar Assad's current situation (if you didn't already know it, Assad happens to be an ophthalmologist):

<

The ophthalmologist never saw it coming. Assad's plan for a phased partial withdrawal over several months would have been hailed as a breakthrough a couple of years back. Now Bush swats it aside as too little, too late. In a poignant conclusion to his interview with Time last week, the neophyte dictator said: "Please send this message: I am not Saddam Hussein. I want to co-operate." You don't have to be an eye doctor to read the writing on the wall.

OK, that's enough ophthamology. The headline on Newsweek's cover, alongside the aforementioned Lebanese totty, was "People Power" - a novel concept in the Middle East, but very real. But just as worrying for Assad is a much older tendency in regional politics - the inclination to side with the winners. Right now, for Bush and the Iraqi people and the Lebanese people and Chirac and Blair and the House of Saud and pretty much everyone except the Canadian prime minister, the winning side looks like whichever side Bashar Assad isn't on.

That's a tough spiral to climb out of. Two years ago, Colin Powell took Jordan's King Abdullah to one side and told him, modifying a Rumsfeldian paradigm, that America saw him as part of "the new Middle East". The Sauds, Mubarak and Gaddafi are not entirely on board with this "new Middle East" thing, but since January 30 they've been doing their best to pretend they are - and the easiest way to do that is to stick some loser with the label of "old Middle East". Syria's prestige, such as it is, rests on its subordination of Lebanon. Abandoning that on a time frame demanded by Bush and the Beirut babes doesn't exactly communicate strength. The Iranians are still officially Assad's pals, but the word is that even they wouldn't be averse to a palace coup.