UPDATE BELOW 21 SEP 07 13:46 CST
Ah, David Byrne, you have never spoken truer words...
September 17th, 2007:
BAGHDAD - The Iraqi government announced Monday it was ordering Blackwater USA, the security firm that protects U.S. diplomats, to leave the country after what it said was the fatal shooting of eight Iraqi civilians following a car bomb attack against a State Department convoy.
The order by the Interior Ministry, if carried out, would deal a severe blow to U.S. government operations in Iraq by stripping diplomats, engineers, reconstruction officials and others of their security protection.
The presence of so many visible, aggressive Western security contractors has angered many Iraqis, who consider them a mercenary force that runs roughshod over people in their own country.
Larry Johnson:
First problem. Blackwater does not have a license to operate in Iraq and does not need one. They have a U.S. State Department contract through Diplomatic Security. Instead of using Diplomatic Security officers or hiring new Security officers or relying on U.S. military personnel, the Bush Administration has contracted with firms like Blackwater, Triple Canopy, and others for people capable of conducting personnel security details. State Department is not about to curtail the contract with Blackwater, who is tightly wired into Washington. Plus, State Department simply does not have the bodies available to carry out the security mission.
Second problem. The Iraqi government has zero power to enforce a decision to oust a firm like Blackwater. For starters, Blackwater has a bigger air force and more armored vehicles then the Iraqi Army and police put together. As Spencer Ackerman reported, Blackwater’s little bird helicopter (an aircraft normally used by U.S. special operations forces) that was firing mini guns at Iraqi targets on the ground this past weekend.
I can only imagine how Americans would react if there were Russian, Chinese, Mexican, or French security firms running around the United States and getting into firefights in tough neighborhoods, such as South Central Los Angeles. We would just shrug our shoulders and say nothing. Right?
Yeah, that’s what I thought. This incident will enrage Iraqis and their subsequent realization that they are impotent to do anything about it will do little to support the fantasy that the surge is working. There are some Iraqis who genuinely want to run their own country. But we are not about to give them the keys to the car. Blackwater is staying.
Jeremy Scahill on CNN:
SCAHILL: Well, the in fact of the matter is the Bush administration failed to build the coalition of willing nations to occupy Iraq. And so, instead, the administration has built a coalition of billing corporations.
SCAHILL: Right now in Iraq, the private personnel on the U.S. government payroll outnumber official U.S. troops. There are 180,000 so-called private contractors operating alongside of 165,000, 170,000 U.S. troops. So really now the U.S. military is the junior partner in this coalition. The mercenary component of the private sector involvement has been totally unaccountable. They operate with impunity. They kill Iraqi civilians and no charges are ever brought against them, in Iraqi law, U.S. law, military law.
HOLMES: If you’re critical of what companies like companies like Blackwater are doing and how they are behaving, what’s the alternative?
SCAHILL: I think the United States needs to withdraw from Iraq. And I believe the U.S. government needs to pay reparations to the Iraqi people. We hear all of this talk of militias and sectarian violence. What about the militias that the U.S. has deployed in Iraq that are running around the country unaccountable? No, I believe — and I’ve spent a lot of time in Iraq — I believe the United States needs to withdraw and pay reparations to the Iraqi people. The arrogance of the West, toward Iraq is incredible. This is a civilization that’s been around for thousands and thousands of years. We think that we’re going to somehow bring the solution to Iraq? No, these are people that can very much dictate their own destiny and they should be allowed to do so, and mercenaries need to get out of Iraq immediately.
Democracy Now!, September 21, 2007:
In Iraq, the private security firm Blackwater USA is reportedly back on the streets of Baghdad despite an announced ban on its activities. The Iraqi government said it had revoked Blackwater’s license this week after its guards killed up to twenty-eight Iraqis in an unprovoked mass shooting. But a Pentagon spokesperson said today Blackwater is guarding diplomatic convoys following talks with the Iraqi government.
UPDATE:
NYT:
BAGHDAD, Sept. 20 — Iraq’s Ministry of Interior has concluded that employees of a private American security firm fired an unprovoked barrage in the shooting last Sunday in which at least eight Iraqis were killed and is proposing a radical reshaping of the way American diplomats and contractors here are protected.
In the first comprehensive account of the day’s events, the ministry said that security guards for Blackwater USA, a company that guards all senior American diplomats here, fired on Iraqis in their cars in midday traffic.
The account says that as soon as the guards took positions in four locations in the square, they began shooting south, killing a driver who had failed to heed a traffic policeman’s call to stop.
“The Blackwater company is considered 100 percent guilty through this investigation,” the report concludes.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Saturday, September 15, 2007
More Changes
Glenda has decided to mothball The Tude. I understand her reasons, but am still saddened by the short life that it lived. It was a good idea, and I enjoyed and am proud of the pieces I wrote for it.
On other fronts, the Zero Day is fast approaching when I will bid the Alley farewell and begin the next chapter of my life here in Houston--at least for the foreseeable future. You never know where or when things are going to take you. An exhaustive post about the process of coming to the decision and some of the reasons as well as what I'm looking toward doing next is in the works and will be forthcoming in mid October.
Meanwhile, I'm beat. I mowed and edged the lawn this morning (something I enjoy doing) and then went over to a friend's house to finish some electrical wiring I was doing for them in their garage, and then went to kickball practice after that. The theater has a team that I just started playing for, and the championship tournament starts on Monday. The team hasn't won a game all season, and the prospects of winning the first round game are low (it's against one of the best teams in the league), but it's fun and that's pretty much all that counts. The gist of all this is that I'm going to turn off the college football game that's on (Boston College mauling Georgia Tech--sorry, not Earth shattering to me...) and hit the old hay so that I have plenty of energy for viewing the football that counts tomorrow.
On other fronts, the Zero Day is fast approaching when I will bid the Alley farewell and begin the next chapter of my life here in Houston--at least for the foreseeable future. You never know where or when things are going to take you. An exhaustive post about the process of coming to the decision and some of the reasons as well as what I'm looking toward doing next is in the works and will be forthcoming in mid October.
Meanwhile, I'm beat. I mowed and edged the lawn this morning (something I enjoy doing) and then went over to a friend's house to finish some electrical wiring I was doing for them in their garage, and then went to kickball practice after that. The theater has a team that I just started playing for, and the championship tournament starts on Monday. The team hasn't won a game all season, and the prospects of winning the first round game are low (it's against one of the best teams in the league), but it's fun and that's pretty much all that counts. The gist of all this is that I'm going to turn off the college football game that's on (Boston College mauling Georgia Tech--sorry, not Earth shattering to me...) and hit the old hay so that I have plenty of energy for viewing the football that counts tomorrow.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Understanding (or trying to)
NOTE: UPDATE BELOW
Raw Story:
Some critics have accused Republican leaders of orchestrating a witch-hunt against Craig, forcing him out in the knowledge that Idaho's Republican governor can fill his Senate seat temporarily with another party member.
Another Republican, David Vitter, has apologized after his name was found in the phone book of a Washington escort service run by the "DC Madam." But the Louisiana senator has not come under nearly as much pressure to resign.
Louisiana has a Democratic governor, and Vitter's departure would strengthen the Democrats' razor-thin Senate majority over the Republicans of 51-49.
Gillespie denied charges of double-standards levied against the Republicans over their handling of Craig, an ardent opponent of gay marriage and an outspoken critic of sexual improprieties by other politicians.
"The fact is that Senator Craig pled guilty to a crime and, therefore, was convicted of a crime," he said.
"Senator Vitter has not been charged with a crime or let alone convicted of one. So there's a pretty big distinction here."
Also being left conspicuously alone in his circumstance is Ted Stevens. Stevens is in pretty serious trouble over the contractors whom he engaged to do work on his Alaska home:
The project, which more than doubled the size of the dwelling, was overseen by Veco CEO Bill Allen, who two months ago pleaded guilty to bribing state lawmakers and agreed to cooperate with authorities.
Stevens's seat would also not be a shoo in to be held by the GOP if he were forced to step down, but that seems to me to be too convenient an explanation. Call me cynical (because I am), but Vitter's and Stevens's infractions are right in line with time old traditions in politics from further back than when the Republican party was the Republican party: Whoring with FEMALES and dealing with crooked businessmen to save some money. Not quite the same as being caught in a sting (whether it was entrapment or a larger part of a 'witch hunt' is up for debate) soliciting a Male on Male sexual encounter in a public place, given the mindset of the average Republican constituent and the general message that has been espoused by the Party concerning Gay rights and "Family Values', per se.
Speaking this evening on The Monitor, Pokie interviewed author and Gay historian John D’Emilio about the past week that Craig has had, arguably one of the roughest weeks in history for any U. S. politician in any circumstance. Not only was he completely abandoned and thrown to the wolves by his own party, but the GLB community was deafeningly silent.
It got me to thinking about a post I wrote for the 'Tude earlier this week on this subject. As a straight male I don't know how qualified I am to be writing in depth analysis (if this can be qualified as such) on the subject, but I do know that I have a greater than average amount of professional and social contact with gays and lesbians (working in the entertainment business and having and above average number of friends who are or were in the process of figuring out that they are gay in high school and my Unitarian Church youth group) and therefore am more aware of issues that directly impact the community. I opened the comments section of the post up with a question about why it's so hard for one to accept one's sexual orientation and move on from there.
An innocent enough query, but one that is likely to get me pretty severely dressed down (pun intended?) for my ignorance and nerve at asking such a question when I have absolutely no frame of reference.
In order to frame the environment that Craig grew up in, E'Milio spoke of the Idaho witch hunt perpetrated against homosexual men in the 1950's when Craig was a young man. Police in Boise, not a large city to begin with, rounded up 1000 men and questioned them about places they frequented and people they associated with. Men left Idaho, some committed suicide. D'Emilio grew up in New York at the same time, and spoke of it as one of the "Gay Capitals' , but reiterated that even there there was nowhere for him to go and be with people like him. Idaho must have been a thousand times worse.
Craig has been taken to task for scolding Bill Clinton for his conduct during his Presidency, as have hundreds of other politicians, Republican and Democrat. In addition to riding on the coattails of public outrage over the episode (artificially manufactured by the media to a large extent) it seems to me that much of this condemnation came out of the fact that it happened WHERE it happened in contrast to the nature of the event. The fact that Clinton initially lied to the his family, the public and Congress about it didn't help matters much either. But if he had had his encounters with La Monica elsewhere, the prospect of their degree of sensationalism and even newsworthiness probably would have been greatly diminished. Any improper behavior that takes place in the Oval Office seems to take on an additional allure and weight. The Republicans would have jumped just as eagerly and viciously if he had been caught taking a bribe, or anything else, IF IT HAPPENED IN THE OVAL OFFICE. For Craig, the condemnation and the nature of it ("He's a nasty, naughty boy") were specifically designed to fall in line lockstep with the Party dogma concerning infidelity and impropriety. Based on the fact that he probably started denying his own sexual identity at such a young age in Idaho probably made denials and "hypocritical" declarations very easy for him.
D'Emilio also pointed out that to people my age and younger, the contrast between the treatment that Gay issues and Gay rights get today is vastly different than twenty or thirty years ago, when he and Craig were just coming into their own agewise, although their sexual identity and orientation were apparent to them years before that. Even twenty five years ago, when Craig was embroiled in a page scandal not unlike the one that brought Mark Foley down last Fall, he had to vehemently deny not only the accusations of the scandal but any hint of a notion that he may have any homosexual inclinations. This was 1982, when AIDS was still just a whisper behind closed doors (not even referred to as AIDS, but as "The Gay Cancer").
De'Emilio was by no means condoning Craig's behavior but rather, making an attempt to shine some light on the terrifying and crushing isolation that this man, like many others like him, has had to endure on a daily basis just to function in the world on a quasi-normal basis. Even as a respected (until now) elected official, loved husband and family man, he was faced with this loneliness that had no outlet for relief (in the form of the fellowship of others like him) because he could reveal it to no one. Certainly a degree of the severity of his circumstances were a result of his own life choices which necessitated various modes and methods of deception and misinformation about who he is as a person, but that couldn't diminish the reality of the isolation.
I recently viewed two films that I had been meaning to see ever since they came out but didn't catch in the theater (not exactly a result of slackerdom: my work necessitates me sitting in a dark room and watching a story unfold in front of me on a stage (usually repeatedly), so I am seldom inclined to pay 8 or 10 dollars to sit in a dark room and watch a story unfold in front of me on a screen) But I digress. The two films in question were A History of Violence and the new Casino Royale. Both good films in their own right, and both concerned in large part with major characters willfully living lives full of contradictions and inaccuracies. Why? There had to be more to it than escape from a past as a mob hit man which almost certainly would have ended in violent death or the maintenance of cover as a 00 agent in Her Majesty's Secret Service, and so must there have had to have been a reason for Larry Craig to live his elaborate life of lies which only now has come crashing down around him. Acceptance in a world that he thought would eliminate his desires? A need to be as close to those that he most admired? This is the aspect of this issue that I'm least familiar with and am most shaky putting forth theories on, so I'll leave it there.
I like women, I'm not insecure about how much of a man I am (because I don't feel the need to project my masculinity on anyone who comes within five feet of me), and I am pretty comfortable with who I am as a Human Being. These three things seem to be hotbed issues that many men feel they have to prove over and over again in today's society, and if they aren't proven daily, then your status as a man is questioned, and therefore your worth as a Human Being is questioned. I'm sure that working in the Arts for as long as I have has colored my views about how easy it is to fit in and be accepted by professional peers, but I certainly don't regret it. If anything, it has given me that chance to be a more well rounded individual since it has exposed me to a variety of personalities. It certainly has gone a long way to giving me the outlook that motivated me to think about what D'Emilio said (and to listen to the show that he was on and the station that it was on, come to think of it) and to spend the time I have to write this post. It's taken me longer than any other post I've written (I usually have an idea and slam some stuff out and publish within a few hours--I'm sure it shows sometimes), but with this one I had to put stuff down and walk away several times. Hopefully it will rub of on future posts and they will benefit from it by being a little more polished, but, who knows? I may go back to the old slam 'em out mode tomorrow.
Larry Craig may have become a politician for the wrong reasons and lived the majority of his life as a huge falsehood. He may still be trying to pitifully maintain the illusion of that falsehood with the help of a few friends and his family, but he is still a human being who has been abandoned by most people he thought he could count on. He has entered a new chapter of the story that is his Hellish life of denial and shame. Deserved or not, I kinda feel sorry for him.
UPDATE 5 Sept 07 09:30:
Many of you are probably wondering what I was smoking when I posted this in light of these recent developments. But it just reinforces my point about the pitiful nature of Craig and the long stretch of meaningless existence he sees his remaining life as being if he is indeed forced to leave the Senate. And it would appear that he (along with one other spineless self annointed fixture in the Capitol) is the only one who thinks he can make a serious attempt to do this...
Raw Story:
Some critics have accused Republican leaders of orchestrating a witch-hunt against Craig, forcing him out in the knowledge that Idaho's Republican governor can fill his Senate seat temporarily with another party member.
Another Republican, David Vitter, has apologized after his name was found in the phone book of a Washington escort service run by the "DC Madam." But the Louisiana senator has not come under nearly as much pressure to resign.
Louisiana has a Democratic governor, and Vitter's departure would strengthen the Democrats' razor-thin Senate majority over the Republicans of 51-49.
Gillespie denied charges of double-standards levied against the Republicans over their handling of Craig, an ardent opponent of gay marriage and an outspoken critic of sexual improprieties by other politicians.
"The fact is that Senator Craig pled guilty to a crime and, therefore, was convicted of a crime," he said.
"Senator Vitter has not been charged with a crime or let alone convicted of one. So there's a pretty big distinction here."
Also being left conspicuously alone in his circumstance is Ted Stevens. Stevens is in pretty serious trouble over the contractors whom he engaged to do work on his Alaska home:
The project, which more than doubled the size of the dwelling, was overseen by Veco CEO Bill Allen, who two months ago pleaded guilty to bribing state lawmakers and agreed to cooperate with authorities.
Stevens's seat would also not be a shoo in to be held by the GOP if he were forced to step down, but that seems to me to be too convenient an explanation. Call me cynical (because I am), but Vitter's and Stevens's infractions are right in line with time old traditions in politics from further back than when the Republican party was the Republican party: Whoring with FEMALES and dealing with crooked businessmen to save some money. Not quite the same as being caught in a sting (whether it was entrapment or a larger part of a 'witch hunt' is up for debate) soliciting a Male on Male sexual encounter in a public place, given the mindset of the average Republican constituent and the general message that has been espoused by the Party concerning Gay rights and "Family Values', per se.
Speaking this evening on The Monitor, Pokie interviewed author and Gay historian John D’Emilio about the past week that Craig has had, arguably one of the roughest weeks in history for any U. S. politician in any circumstance. Not only was he completely abandoned and thrown to the wolves by his own party, but the GLB community was deafeningly silent.
It got me to thinking about a post I wrote for the 'Tude earlier this week on this subject. As a straight male I don't know how qualified I am to be writing in depth analysis (if this can be qualified as such) on the subject, but I do know that I have a greater than average amount of professional and social contact with gays and lesbians (working in the entertainment business and having and above average number of friends who are or were in the process of figuring out that they are gay in high school and my Unitarian Church youth group) and therefore am more aware of issues that directly impact the community. I opened the comments section of the post up with a question about why it's so hard for one to accept one's sexual orientation and move on from there.
An innocent enough query, but one that is likely to get me pretty severely dressed down (pun intended?) for my ignorance and nerve at asking such a question when I have absolutely no frame of reference.
In order to frame the environment that Craig grew up in, E'Milio spoke of the Idaho witch hunt perpetrated against homosexual men in the 1950's when Craig was a young man. Police in Boise, not a large city to begin with, rounded up 1000 men and questioned them about places they frequented and people they associated with. Men left Idaho, some committed suicide. D'Emilio grew up in New York at the same time, and spoke of it as one of the "Gay Capitals' , but reiterated that even there there was nowhere for him to go and be with people like him. Idaho must have been a thousand times worse.
Craig has been taken to task for scolding Bill Clinton for his conduct during his Presidency, as have hundreds of other politicians, Republican and Democrat. In addition to riding on the coattails of public outrage over the episode (artificially manufactured by the media to a large extent) it seems to me that much of this condemnation came out of the fact that it happened WHERE it happened in contrast to the nature of the event. The fact that Clinton initially lied to the his family, the public and Congress about it didn't help matters much either. But if he had had his encounters with La Monica elsewhere, the prospect of their degree of sensationalism and even newsworthiness probably would have been greatly diminished. Any improper behavior that takes place in the Oval Office seems to take on an additional allure and weight. The Republicans would have jumped just as eagerly and viciously if he had been caught taking a bribe, or anything else, IF IT HAPPENED IN THE OVAL OFFICE. For Craig, the condemnation and the nature of it ("He's a nasty, naughty boy") were specifically designed to fall in line lockstep with the Party dogma concerning infidelity and impropriety. Based on the fact that he probably started denying his own sexual identity at such a young age in Idaho probably made denials and "hypocritical" declarations very easy for him.
D'Emilio also pointed out that to people my age and younger, the contrast between the treatment that Gay issues and Gay rights get today is vastly different than twenty or thirty years ago, when he and Craig were just coming into their own agewise, although their sexual identity and orientation were apparent to them years before that. Even twenty five years ago, when Craig was embroiled in a page scandal not unlike the one that brought Mark Foley down last Fall, he had to vehemently deny not only the accusations of the scandal but any hint of a notion that he may have any homosexual inclinations. This was 1982, when AIDS was still just a whisper behind closed doors (not even referred to as AIDS, but as "The Gay Cancer").
De'Emilio was by no means condoning Craig's behavior but rather, making an attempt to shine some light on the terrifying and crushing isolation that this man, like many others like him, has had to endure on a daily basis just to function in the world on a quasi-normal basis. Even as a respected (until now) elected official, loved husband and family man, he was faced with this loneliness that had no outlet for relief (in the form of the fellowship of others like him) because he could reveal it to no one. Certainly a degree of the severity of his circumstances were a result of his own life choices which necessitated various modes and methods of deception and misinformation about who he is as a person, but that couldn't diminish the reality of the isolation.
I recently viewed two films that I had been meaning to see ever since they came out but didn't catch in the theater (not exactly a result of slackerdom: my work necessitates me sitting in a dark room and watching a story unfold in front of me on a stage (usually repeatedly), so I am seldom inclined to pay 8 or 10 dollars to sit in a dark room and watch a story unfold in front of me on a screen) But I digress. The two films in question were A History of Violence and the new Casino Royale. Both good films in their own right, and both concerned in large part with major characters willfully living lives full of contradictions and inaccuracies. Why? There had to be more to it than escape from a past as a mob hit man which almost certainly would have ended in violent death or the maintenance of cover as a 00 agent in Her Majesty's Secret Service, and so must there have had to have been a reason for Larry Craig to live his elaborate life of lies which only now has come crashing down around him. Acceptance in a world that he thought would eliminate his desires? A need to be as close to those that he most admired? This is the aspect of this issue that I'm least familiar with and am most shaky putting forth theories on, so I'll leave it there.
I like women, I'm not insecure about how much of a man I am (because I don't feel the need to project my masculinity on anyone who comes within five feet of me), and I am pretty comfortable with who I am as a Human Being. These three things seem to be hotbed issues that many men feel they have to prove over and over again in today's society, and if they aren't proven daily, then your status as a man is questioned, and therefore your worth as a Human Being is questioned. I'm sure that working in the Arts for as long as I have has colored my views about how easy it is to fit in and be accepted by professional peers, but I certainly don't regret it. If anything, it has given me that chance to be a more well rounded individual since it has exposed me to a variety of personalities. It certainly has gone a long way to giving me the outlook that motivated me to think about what D'Emilio said (and to listen to the show that he was on and the station that it was on, come to think of it) and to spend the time I have to write this post. It's taken me longer than any other post I've written (I usually have an idea and slam some stuff out and publish within a few hours--I'm sure it shows sometimes), but with this one I had to put stuff down and walk away several times. Hopefully it will rub of on future posts and they will benefit from it by being a little more polished, but, who knows? I may go back to the old slam 'em out mode tomorrow.
Larry Craig may have become a politician for the wrong reasons and lived the majority of his life as a huge falsehood. He may still be trying to pitifully maintain the illusion of that falsehood with the help of a few friends and his family, but he is still a human being who has been abandoned by most people he thought he could count on. He has entered a new chapter of the story that is his Hellish life of denial and shame. Deserved or not, I kinda feel sorry for him.
UPDATE 5 Sept 07 09:30:
Many of you are probably wondering what I was smoking when I posted this in light of these recent developments. But it just reinforces my point about the pitiful nature of Craig and the long stretch of meaningless existence he sees his remaining life as being if he is indeed forced to leave the Senate. And it would appear that he (along with one other spineless self annointed fixture in the Capitol) is the only one who thinks he can make a serious attempt to do this...
Saturday, September 1, 2007
Unjustifiable Means
I just posted a rather long tude over at the 'Tude dealing with the latest technological innovations that the FBI has implemented in their wiretapping program.
We're getting ready to open John Patrick Shanley's Doubt at The Alley. Without giving too much away, it details the struggles of a Nun at a Catholic school to remove a perceived (by her) threat to the students by whatever means necessary. At the very end of the play she makes a terrifying declaration while attempting to justify her actions to her protege, a younger and much less life experienced Nun:
"In the pursuit of wrongdoing, one steps away from God."
Much of what has been going on in the past six years in the pursuit of wrongdoing and terrorism on the part of our government has been done while "stepping away from the Law, Justice, and Human Decency."
We must never forget that no matter what the deed being responded to and how dire the threat, the ends never justify the means. Acting otherwise only leads to reducing oneself to the same level as the wrongdoer, or worse, even lower.
We're getting ready to open John Patrick Shanley's Doubt at The Alley. Without giving too much away, it details the struggles of a Nun at a Catholic school to remove a perceived (by her) threat to the students by whatever means necessary. At the very end of the play she makes a terrifying declaration while attempting to justify her actions to her protege, a younger and much less life experienced Nun:
"In the pursuit of wrongdoing, one steps away from God."
Much of what has been going on in the past six years in the pursuit of wrongdoing and terrorism on the part of our government has been done while "stepping away from the Law, Justice, and Human Decency."
We must never forget that no matter what the deed being responded to and how dire the threat, the ends never justify the means. Acting otherwise only leads to reducing oneself to the same level as the wrongdoer, or worse, even lower.
Friday, August 31, 2007
Fault Lines
I've been posting daily over at the 'Tude, but the treatment I wanted to give this isn't really in line with what Hill and the gang are going for over there. So, for your consumption:
The Danziger Bridge Killings: How New Orleans Police Gunned Down Civilians Fleeing the Flood
Democracy Now!:
On the second anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, we take a look back the Danziger Bridge killings. Seven police officers been indicted for opening fire on two African American families on the Danziger Bridge days after the storm, killing two people and wounding four others. At the time, the official story was that they gunned down snipers. Now the question is why they shot at two families fleeing the flood.
Last December, seven police officers were indicted for killing two people walking across the bridge. They were from two families, the Bartholomews and the Madisons. James Brisette, a young man who was a friend of the Bartholomews, was killed by seven bullets in his back and legs. Susan Bartholomew's arm was partially blown off. Her daughter and husband had three gunshot wounds each. Their trial is ongoing.
Ronald Madison, a forty-year-old mentally disabled man, was one of the two people killed. He was walking across the bridge with his older brother Lance, when, according to police, he was shot in the back and died. Lance was initially arrested and jailed for attempting to murder the police officers. He was later released after a grand jury cleared his name.
Dr. Rommel Madison is the brother of Lance and Ronald Madison. He is a dentist, and he testified this week at the International Tribunal on Hurricane Katrina that was put together by the People’s Hurricane Fund.
DR. ROMELL MADISON: My brothers were seeking help to get to safety on the east side of the Danziger Bridge by officers on the west side, and it hadn’t flooded, so they had refuge there. But they didn't have food or water, so they would go to the east side, where everyone was being picked up to be brought to safety to the dome and to the Convention Center.
On the day of September 4th, there was a family at the foot of the bridge, a husband, wife, daughter, three small kids and a teenager. During that time they were on the bridge, they noticed a rental truck, a moving van-type-sized truck, about a mid-sized van. It pulled up where the family was. They exited the truck. About seven men exited the truck, and they opened fire on the family at the foot of the bridge. One individual was killed. Everyone was wounded, but one of the children. The children's ages were from fourteen to nineteen.
After seeing that, they started retreating back to the westbound side of the Danziger Bridge back toward my office again. And at that point the police officers opened fire on them. They wounded my brother Ronald in the back twice. My brother Lance was able to get him to the other side of the bridge and put him on the grass, and then he ran for help. When he did return, he was relieved to find the National Guard and the state police, and he was telling them what happened.
At that point, the police officers walked up, and then they finally disclosed that they were police, because when they originally got out of the van, they were dressed in shorts, T-shirts, just plain shirts. They never identified themselves as being police. And to see them open fire on a small group of individuals, African American individuals, at the foot of the bridge, they just figured they were out to, you know, go hunting and shooting and killing people.
[snip]
AMY GOODMAN: What do you think needs to be done now? In the case of your family, the police officers are going on trial, Dr. Madison. Your family has also sued?
DR. ROMELL MADISON: My mother and brother have. But presently, we're still faced with the uphill fight with the judicial system. OK, when the indictments were handed out to the police on December 28th of ’05, they were allowed to turn themselves in January 2nd of ’06, so that they could have this time to spend with their families.
The second thing that the judge did that I feel was incorrect was that he provided bail for first-degree murder. Nowhere in the United States is anyone provided bail for first-degree murder. These individuals were provided bail. One of the officers quit and was allowed to move to Houston, Texas, to leave the state. And that's unheard of also. They were supposed to be on house arrest, and they shouldn't have left -- he shouldn’t have gone anywhere.
Third, they were allowed to go back to work as police in the police department, which is really a tragedy to the public. They’ve fired police for second-degree battery, let alone for being charged for first-degree murder, and allowed them to come back to work as police officers.
The last thing is that the violation of the grand jury testimony, too, by giving it to the defense attorneys for the police, to allow them to find out what’s [inaudible] in it and whether it would have a means to try to have the charges dropped against their clients. Now, that is another violation of civil rights injustice, because no one's allowed to view the grand jury testimony. If that was the case, they could have let the defense attorney decide whether or not they should be charged or not.
Everything has really been the complete opposite of what should be. And finally the judge -- there was a motion for the judge to recuse himself. I don't think just because of this, but because of his air of impropriety that was given in his disclosure. So at this point, that's what we're all working on: his recusal from the case and trying to obtain a judge that will deal with everything strictly by the book and fairly.
ROSANA CRUZ: And just to clarify, the judge on this case is a close friend of the police department, has three staff members who have direct family relationships or business relationships with the defense attorneys.
If and when the state of affairs in this country deteriorates to the point of Martial Law being declared, which Arthur thinks may be closer than one is comfortable thinking about, the social structure will likely show immediate signs of fracture along the lines of race and economic status. It is not difficult to imagine a bloodbath the likes of which would make the above chronicled events look like a schoolyard shoving match.
The fault lines that such a fracture would follow exist today and have existed for hundreds of years. No amount of military defeats or proclamations or legislative acts have been able to alter the deep seated traditions and beliefs of white people towards people of color, specifically African Americans. Part of it is the resistance toward governance by a body thousands of miles away that has no perceived frame of reference to the local circumstances, but the greater part is the deep seated human tendency to continue to vilify what has been viewed as that which is not a part of us, past and present and future, simply out of the fear of change. Sadly, the circumstances that will most likely bring upon an escalation of this behavior are also the greatest opportunity for the dismantling of those attitudes and barriers.
The choice to continue down the path of separation and marginalization through intimidation and violence is easier than the uncertain choice to cross the barriers and engage. A very unique set of circumstances need to fall into place in order for this to happen and they need to be met with an open eyed attitude. This is not usually the mindset people are operating in when faced with the daunting scenarios found during a large natural (or man made, in the case of the Levees rupturing) disaster or a police or militarily enforced social regimen (which is what Martial Law essentially is.)
One would hope that we have evolved far enough that there are people whose cooler heads would prevail in some situations like this, as they did in the case of Houston Mayor Bill White overruling Harris County Judge Robert Eckels in the matter of accepting the bulk of evacuees from New Orleans two years ago. Unfortunately, the possibility of examples of the conduct detailed above cannot be ruled out.
The Danziger Bridge Killings: How New Orleans Police Gunned Down Civilians Fleeing the Flood
Democracy Now!:
On the second anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, we take a look back the Danziger Bridge killings. Seven police officers been indicted for opening fire on two African American families on the Danziger Bridge days after the storm, killing two people and wounding four others. At the time, the official story was that they gunned down snipers. Now the question is why they shot at two families fleeing the flood.
Last December, seven police officers were indicted for killing two people walking across the bridge. They were from two families, the Bartholomews and the Madisons. James Brisette, a young man who was a friend of the Bartholomews, was killed by seven bullets in his back and legs. Susan Bartholomew's arm was partially blown off. Her daughter and husband had three gunshot wounds each. Their trial is ongoing.
Ronald Madison, a forty-year-old mentally disabled man, was one of the two people killed. He was walking across the bridge with his older brother Lance, when, according to police, he was shot in the back and died. Lance was initially arrested and jailed for attempting to murder the police officers. He was later released after a grand jury cleared his name.
Dr. Rommel Madison is the brother of Lance and Ronald Madison. He is a dentist, and he testified this week at the International Tribunal on Hurricane Katrina that was put together by the People’s Hurricane Fund.
DR. ROMELL MADISON: My brothers were seeking help to get to safety on the east side of the Danziger Bridge by officers on the west side, and it hadn’t flooded, so they had refuge there. But they didn't have food or water, so they would go to the east side, where everyone was being picked up to be brought to safety to the dome and to the Convention Center.
On the day of September 4th, there was a family at the foot of the bridge, a husband, wife, daughter, three small kids and a teenager. During that time they were on the bridge, they noticed a rental truck, a moving van-type-sized truck, about a mid-sized van. It pulled up where the family was. They exited the truck. About seven men exited the truck, and they opened fire on the family at the foot of the bridge. One individual was killed. Everyone was wounded, but one of the children. The children's ages were from fourteen to nineteen.
After seeing that, they started retreating back to the westbound side of the Danziger Bridge back toward my office again. And at that point the police officers opened fire on them. They wounded my brother Ronald in the back twice. My brother Lance was able to get him to the other side of the bridge and put him on the grass, and then he ran for help. When he did return, he was relieved to find the National Guard and the state police, and he was telling them what happened.
At that point, the police officers walked up, and then they finally disclosed that they were police, because when they originally got out of the van, they were dressed in shorts, T-shirts, just plain shirts. They never identified themselves as being police. And to see them open fire on a small group of individuals, African American individuals, at the foot of the bridge, they just figured they were out to, you know, go hunting and shooting and killing people.
[snip]
AMY GOODMAN: What do you think needs to be done now? In the case of your family, the police officers are going on trial, Dr. Madison. Your family has also sued?
DR. ROMELL MADISON: My mother and brother have. But presently, we're still faced with the uphill fight with the judicial system. OK, when the indictments were handed out to the police on December 28th of ’05, they were allowed to turn themselves in January 2nd of ’06, so that they could have this time to spend with their families.
The second thing that the judge did that I feel was incorrect was that he provided bail for first-degree murder. Nowhere in the United States is anyone provided bail for first-degree murder. These individuals were provided bail. One of the officers quit and was allowed to move to Houston, Texas, to leave the state. And that's unheard of also. They were supposed to be on house arrest, and they shouldn't have left -- he shouldn’t have gone anywhere.
Third, they were allowed to go back to work as police in the police department, which is really a tragedy to the public. They’ve fired police for second-degree battery, let alone for being charged for first-degree murder, and allowed them to come back to work as police officers.
The last thing is that the violation of the grand jury testimony, too, by giving it to the defense attorneys for the police, to allow them to find out what’s [inaudible] in it and whether it would have a means to try to have the charges dropped against their clients. Now, that is another violation of civil rights injustice, because no one's allowed to view the grand jury testimony. If that was the case, they could have let the defense attorney decide whether or not they should be charged or not.
Everything has really been the complete opposite of what should be. And finally the judge -- there was a motion for the judge to recuse himself. I don't think just because of this, but because of his air of impropriety that was given in his disclosure. So at this point, that's what we're all working on: his recusal from the case and trying to obtain a judge that will deal with everything strictly by the book and fairly.
ROSANA CRUZ: And just to clarify, the judge on this case is a close friend of the police department, has three staff members who have direct family relationships or business relationships with the defense attorneys.
If and when the state of affairs in this country deteriorates to the point of Martial Law being declared, which Arthur thinks may be closer than one is comfortable thinking about, the social structure will likely show immediate signs of fracture along the lines of race and economic status. It is not difficult to imagine a bloodbath the likes of which would make the above chronicled events look like a schoolyard shoving match.
The fault lines that such a fracture would follow exist today and have existed for hundreds of years. No amount of military defeats or proclamations or legislative acts have been able to alter the deep seated traditions and beliefs of white people towards people of color, specifically African Americans. Part of it is the resistance toward governance by a body thousands of miles away that has no perceived frame of reference to the local circumstances, but the greater part is the deep seated human tendency to continue to vilify what has been viewed as that which is not a part of us, past and present and future, simply out of the fear of change. Sadly, the circumstances that will most likely bring upon an escalation of this behavior are also the greatest opportunity for the dismantling of those attitudes and barriers.
The choice to continue down the path of separation and marginalization through intimidation and violence is easier than the uncertain choice to cross the barriers and engage. A very unique set of circumstances need to fall into place in order for this to happen and they need to be met with an open eyed attitude. This is not usually the mindset people are operating in when faced with the daunting scenarios found during a large natural (or man made, in the case of the Levees rupturing) disaster or a police or militarily enforced social regimen (which is what Martial Law essentially is.)
One would hope that we have evolved far enough that there are people whose cooler heads would prevail in some situations like this, as they did in the case of Houston Mayor Bill White overruling Harris County Judge Robert Eckels in the matter of accepting the bulk of evacuees from New Orleans two years ago. Unfortunately, the possibility of examples of the conduct detailed above cannot be ruled out.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Their Loss=Our Gain
John McClain:
Looking back at March 22, the day Matt Schaub was acquired by the Texans, I'll never forget the haunting words of one member of the Falcons organization: "We just traded the wrong quarterback."
Little did he or anyone in Atlanta understand just how prophetic those words would become.
Before the Texans made the trade, Schaub got strong endorsements from two coaches Kubiak knows well from working with them for so many years at Denver.
Bill Musgrave, who coaches quarterbacks at Atlanta, tutored Schaub last season and at the University of Virginia. Alex Gibbs was a Falcons assistant during Schaub's first three years. They told Kubiak that Schaub was just about everything he wanted in a quarterback and that he would make a smooth transition into the Texans' system.
As a Texans fan, this is a development of such proportions that one tends to get a bit giddy at the prospect of the team's performance in the next few years. It also is an example of such bitter irony for the Falcons organization and their fans that you can't help but feel some empathy. How can you giggle behind a bunched hand or chuckle to yourself mentally at the man who gets clocked by a falling safe in the middle of a meadow?
While the statement from the Falcons representative quoted above does indicate the knowledge of potential issues with Vick both on field and off, there can't be any way of foreseeing the firestorm that is in motion and will most likely end in jail time and the end of his NFL, if not his entire professional football, career. However, the statement seems to cut in another direction, this one strictly football related.
The running quarterback's days are numbered. This is not to say that we are looking at a return of the proliference of the classic immobile pocket passer in the NFL, but more to the passing quarterback with good pocket instincts--the ability to feel pressure and avoid it long enough to gain a small amount of yardage or avoid a large loss fifty percent of the time or more. Yes, this is a lot to ask, but players can be developed (and can develop themselves) to meet this criteria.
The classic running quarterback (notice I didn't say 'scrambling') is a dying breed mainly due to his own attractiveness in two ways: the potential for yards and touchdowns both through the air and on the ground, and the potential gate and television revenue generated by an exciting player who can potentially provide an amazing play worthy of Sunday night highlights and play of the year accolades at every snap of the ball. Based on the value attached to those two attractive possibilities, owners such as Norman Braman, Zygi Wilf, and Arthur Blank secured running quarterbacks Randall Cunningham, Dante Culpepper and Vick with huge contracts and signing bonuses.
However, this strategy soon came to reveal itself as a sharp double edged sword. Along with the gate value and improvement that this new generation of QBs brought to the team, it also exposed them to more serious types of injury more often than the classic pocket QB. Another, perhaps even more serious issue that reared its ugly head was the matter of conditioning that showed itself in the tendency of these quarterbacks to fade a little or succumb to more minor injuries that they might have been able to play through earlier in the season in the last quarter of the season or (worse) during the playoffs.
This has proven itself to be a recurring factor in the late season and playoff performances of the Eagles in the eighties and nineties with Cunningham, and again here in the aughts with McNabb, the Vikings in the nineties with both Cunningham and Culpepper, the Steelers in the late nineties with Kordell Stewart, and the Falcons in recent years with Vick. Contrast that with the QBs who have made it deep into the playoffs and to the Super Bowl and won it such as Brady, Manning, Warner, Elway, Favre, and Aikman. The only two examples of classic running QBs who made it to the Super Bowl are McNair with the Titans in the 1999 season, and you can hardly pin the outcome of that game on his ability--the entire team played their hearts out and almost snatched that game out from under Kurt Warner and Dick Vermeil's noses, and McNabb with the Eagles two years ago--and that loss can be attributed more to the questionable late game play calling of Andy Reid than McNabb's performance, the inane comments of Terrell Owens not withstanding.
You have to think that GM's and coaches pay attention to these results and act accordingly. David Carr was an above average QB at Fresno State, but the NFL isn't the WAC and the schedule is a bit more intense than what he experienced in college. The sieve of an offensive line that he had to work with for most of his career also had a lot to do with it, but McClain also makes these good points:
Schaub gets rid of the ball fast. He's been sacked once in three games. Kubiak wants the Texans to have fewer than 30 sacks, which would be a franchise-record low.
Schaub feels pressure and knows how to sidestep it. Sage Rosenfels, who's capable of being a starter in Kubiak's system, also has that pocket presence coaches talk so much about.
Schaub makes good decisions. In other words, he doesn't throw the ball to the wrong spot or step into sacks. He's authoritative in the huddle, it's clear he's in charge, and no one else talks.
Schaub doesn't say the wrong thing. He listens and soaks in everything he hears that might benefit him. He doesn't make excuses. He takes the blame whether he deserves it or not. He accepts criticism. When he makes a mistake, he gets angry at himself, not anyone else, and vows not to make the same mistake again.
Sorry Falcons. You pay your money, you take your chances...
Looking back at March 22, the day Matt Schaub was acquired by the Texans, I'll never forget the haunting words of one member of the Falcons organization: "We just traded the wrong quarterback."
Little did he or anyone in Atlanta understand just how prophetic those words would become.
Before the Texans made the trade, Schaub got strong endorsements from two coaches Kubiak knows well from working with them for so many years at Denver.
Bill Musgrave, who coaches quarterbacks at Atlanta, tutored Schaub last season and at the University of Virginia. Alex Gibbs was a Falcons assistant during Schaub's first three years. They told Kubiak that Schaub was just about everything he wanted in a quarterback and that he would make a smooth transition into the Texans' system.
As a Texans fan, this is a development of such proportions that one tends to get a bit giddy at the prospect of the team's performance in the next few years. It also is an example of such bitter irony for the Falcons organization and their fans that you can't help but feel some empathy. How can you giggle behind a bunched hand or chuckle to yourself mentally at the man who gets clocked by a falling safe in the middle of a meadow?
While the statement from the Falcons representative quoted above does indicate the knowledge of potential issues with Vick both on field and off, there can't be any way of foreseeing the firestorm that is in motion and will most likely end in jail time and the end of his NFL, if not his entire professional football, career. However, the statement seems to cut in another direction, this one strictly football related.
The running quarterback's days are numbered. This is not to say that we are looking at a return of the proliference of the classic immobile pocket passer in the NFL, but more to the passing quarterback with good pocket instincts--the ability to feel pressure and avoid it long enough to gain a small amount of yardage or avoid a large loss fifty percent of the time or more. Yes, this is a lot to ask, but players can be developed (and can develop themselves) to meet this criteria.
The classic running quarterback (notice I didn't say 'scrambling') is a dying breed mainly due to his own attractiveness in two ways: the potential for yards and touchdowns both through the air and on the ground, and the potential gate and television revenue generated by an exciting player who can potentially provide an amazing play worthy of Sunday night highlights and play of the year accolades at every snap of the ball. Based on the value attached to those two attractive possibilities, owners such as Norman Braman, Zygi Wilf, and Arthur Blank secured running quarterbacks Randall Cunningham, Dante Culpepper and Vick with huge contracts and signing bonuses.
However, this strategy soon came to reveal itself as a sharp double edged sword. Along with the gate value and improvement that this new generation of QBs brought to the team, it also exposed them to more serious types of injury more often than the classic pocket QB. Another, perhaps even more serious issue that reared its ugly head was the matter of conditioning that showed itself in the tendency of these quarterbacks to fade a little or succumb to more minor injuries that they might have been able to play through earlier in the season in the last quarter of the season or (worse) during the playoffs.
This has proven itself to be a recurring factor in the late season and playoff performances of the Eagles in the eighties and nineties with Cunningham, and again here in the aughts with McNabb, the Vikings in the nineties with both Cunningham and Culpepper, the Steelers in the late nineties with Kordell Stewart, and the Falcons in recent years with Vick. Contrast that with the QBs who have made it deep into the playoffs and to the Super Bowl and won it such as Brady, Manning, Warner, Elway, Favre, and Aikman. The only two examples of classic running QBs who made it to the Super Bowl are McNair with the Titans in the 1999 season, and you can hardly pin the outcome of that game on his ability--the entire team played their hearts out and almost snatched that game out from under Kurt Warner and Dick Vermeil's noses, and McNabb with the Eagles two years ago--and that loss can be attributed more to the questionable late game play calling of Andy Reid than McNabb's performance, the inane comments of Terrell Owens not withstanding.
You have to think that GM's and coaches pay attention to these results and act accordingly. David Carr was an above average QB at Fresno State, but the NFL isn't the WAC and the schedule is a bit more intense than what he experienced in college. The sieve of an offensive line that he had to work with for most of his career also had a lot to do with it, but McClain also makes these good points:
Schaub gets rid of the ball fast. He's been sacked once in three games. Kubiak wants the Texans to have fewer than 30 sacks, which would be a franchise-record low.
Schaub feels pressure and knows how to sidestep it. Sage Rosenfels, who's capable of being a starter in Kubiak's system, also has that pocket presence coaches talk so much about.
Schaub makes good decisions. In other words, he doesn't throw the ball to the wrong spot or step into sacks. He's authoritative in the huddle, it's clear he's in charge, and no one else talks.
Schaub doesn't say the wrong thing. He listens and soaks in everything he hears that might benefit him. He doesn't make excuses. He takes the blame whether he deserves it or not. He accepts criticism. When he makes a mistake, he gets angry at himself, not anyone else, and vows not to make the same mistake again.
Sorry Falcons. You pay your money, you take your chances...
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Just leave 'em alone!
Houston Press:
Freaking ferrets. They're insidious. Their cuteness conquers all. It makes people forget the high price of keeping them, measured in both vets' bills and time spent entertaining them. It trumps the fact that you're going to be spending a lot of time cleaning up ferret shit. It blinds you to the realization that you're loving a weasel.
"I call them the 'Thief of Hearts,'" Clark says. "They will steal your heart, but they will also break it pretty bad when they go. Next year I'll have to get another to replace Vladi."
My brother had several of these little critters when we were in college and both living at home. The most annoying thing about them was their habit of chewing on the back of my Timberland boots, which gave them a well worn look but made it hazardous to move in a rolling chair after sitting for a period of time more than, say, thirty seconds. When Rikki died he had him cremated and still has the ashes in an Urn at his house (he has two dogs now). The other two Ferrets were being boarded while the medical clearances to go to Japan to live with his girlfriend at the time's sister and her husband.
Yeah, they smelled, and the percentage of accuracy in terms of the litter box did leave a bit to be desired, but they lived primarily in his room, so it wasn't that much of an issue. It certainly wasn't as serious a problem as some people make it out to be:
Giuliani: This conversation is over, David. Thank you. [Mr. Giuliani cuts him off.] There is something really, really, very sad about you. You need help. You need somebody to help you. I know you feel insulted by that, but I'm being honest with you. This excessive concern with little weasels is a sickness.
I'm sorry. That's my opinion. You don't have to accept it. There are probably very few people who would be as honest with you about that. But you should go consult a psychologist or a psychiatrist, and have him help you with this excessive concern, how you are devoting your life to weasels.
There are people in this city and in this world that need a lot of help. Something has gone wrong with you. Your compulsion about it, your excessive concern with it, is a sign of something wrong in your personality. I do not mean to be insulting. I'm trying to be honest with you and I'm trying to give you advice for your own good. I know you, I know how you operate, I know how many times you called here this week. Three or 4 o'clock in the morning, David, you called here.
You have a sickness. I know it's hard for you to accept that, because you hang on to this sickness, and it's your shield, it's your whatever. You know, you gotta go to someone who understands this a lot better than I do. And I know you're real angry at me, you're gonna attack me, but actually you're angry at yourself and you're afraid of what I'm raising with you. And if you don't deal with it, I don't know what you're gonna do. But you called here excessively all week, and you called here at 3 o'clock in the morning. And 4 o'clock in the morning. Over weasels. Over a ferret.
The fact that they're illegal to be kept as pets in some municipalities across the country and here in the Houston metropolitan area under the pretense that they are as dangerous as predatory cats is ludicrous. People keep animals as pets that are more dangerous and more eccentric than Ferrets, sometimes with deadly results. Whoever heard of a Ferret choking the life out of its owner? And when the little guys do bite you, it's all in play and totally harmless (as long as they've had their rabies shots), unlike
this:
From ALLAN HALL
in Berlin
A MAN who lived in his own “zoo” of lizards and insects was fatally bitten by a pet black widow spider — then eaten by the other creepy-crawlies.
Police broke in to Mark Voegel’s apartment to find spider Bettina along with 200 others, several snakes, a gecko lizard called Helmut and several thousand termites had gorged on his body.
It may not be illegal, but, man, that's just STOOOPID...
Pets are great, not matter what anyone else thinks about them. They provide companionship, and their love is unconditional as long as you treat them with respect and compassion. Whoever heard of a well loved pet going bad?
One more thing about Ferrets. They don't take kindly to being called weasels, and they're not afraid to speak out against attempts at oppression:
Freaking ferrets. They're insidious. Their cuteness conquers all. It makes people forget the high price of keeping them, measured in both vets' bills and time spent entertaining them. It trumps the fact that you're going to be spending a lot of time cleaning up ferret shit. It blinds you to the realization that you're loving a weasel.
"I call them the 'Thief of Hearts,'" Clark says. "They will steal your heart, but they will also break it pretty bad when they go. Next year I'll have to get another to replace Vladi."
My brother had several of these little critters when we were in college and both living at home. The most annoying thing about them was their habit of chewing on the back of my Timberland boots, which gave them a well worn look but made it hazardous to move in a rolling chair after sitting for a period of time more than, say, thirty seconds. When Rikki died he had him cremated and still has the ashes in an Urn at his house (he has two dogs now). The other two Ferrets were being boarded while the medical clearances to go to Japan to live with his girlfriend at the time's sister and her husband.
Yeah, they smelled, and the percentage of accuracy in terms of the litter box did leave a bit to be desired, but they lived primarily in his room, so it wasn't that much of an issue. It certainly wasn't as serious a problem as some people make it out to be:
Giuliani: This conversation is over, David. Thank you. [Mr. Giuliani cuts him off.] There is something really, really, very sad about you. You need help. You need somebody to help you. I know you feel insulted by that, but I'm being honest with you. This excessive concern with little weasels is a sickness.
I'm sorry. That's my opinion. You don't have to accept it. There are probably very few people who would be as honest with you about that. But you should go consult a psychologist or a psychiatrist, and have him help you with this excessive concern, how you are devoting your life to weasels.
There are people in this city and in this world that need a lot of help. Something has gone wrong with you. Your compulsion about it, your excessive concern with it, is a sign of something wrong in your personality. I do not mean to be insulting. I'm trying to be honest with you and I'm trying to give you advice for your own good. I know you, I know how you operate, I know how many times you called here this week. Three or 4 o'clock in the morning, David, you called here.
You have a sickness. I know it's hard for you to accept that, because you hang on to this sickness, and it's your shield, it's your whatever. You know, you gotta go to someone who understands this a lot better than I do. And I know you're real angry at me, you're gonna attack me, but actually you're angry at yourself and you're afraid of what I'm raising with you. And if you don't deal with it, I don't know what you're gonna do. But you called here excessively all week, and you called here at 3 o'clock in the morning. And 4 o'clock in the morning. Over weasels. Over a ferret.
The fact that they're illegal to be kept as pets in some municipalities across the country and here in the Houston metropolitan area under the pretense that they are as dangerous as predatory cats is ludicrous. People keep animals as pets that are more dangerous and more eccentric than Ferrets, sometimes with deadly results. Whoever heard of a Ferret choking the life out of its owner? And when the little guys do bite you, it's all in play and totally harmless (as long as they've had their rabies shots), unlike
this:
From ALLAN HALL
in Berlin
A MAN who lived in his own “zoo” of lizards and insects was fatally bitten by a pet black widow spider — then eaten by the other creepy-crawlies.
Police broke in to Mark Voegel’s apartment to find spider Bettina along with 200 others, several snakes, a gecko lizard called Helmut and several thousand termites had gorged on his body.
It may not be illegal, but, man, that's just STOOOPID...
Pets are great, not matter what anyone else thinks about them. They provide companionship, and their love is unconditional as long as you treat them with respect and compassion. Whoever heard of a well loved pet going bad?
One more thing about Ferrets. They don't take kindly to being called weasels, and they're not afraid to speak out against attempts at oppression:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)