All this talk coming from the Democrats about leaving Iraq may not amount to anything if a secret plan by the Bush administration comes true. According to UK's The Independent newspaper, a deal is being negotiated between the US and Iraqi government that would cement our presence in the country for an indefinite amount of time, making it nearly impossible for future presidents to coordinate a withdrawal.
The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to The Independent, are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country.
The precise nature of the American demands has been kept secret until now. The leaks are certain to generate an angry backlash in Iraq. "It is a terrible breach of our sovereignty," said one Iraqi politician, adding that if the security deal was signed it would delegitimise the government in Baghdad which will be seen as an American pawn.
The US has repeatedly denied it wants permanent bases in Iraq but one Iraqi source said: "This is just a tactical subterfuge." Washington also wants control of Iraqi airspace below 29,000ft and the right to pursue its "war on terror" in Iraq, giving it the authority to arrest anybody it wants and to launch military campaigns without consultation.
Mr Bush is determined to force the Iraqi government to sign the so-called "strategic alliance" without modifications, by the end of next month. But it is already being condemned by the Iranians and many Arabs as a continuing American attempt to dominate the region. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the powerful and usually moderate Iranian leader, said yesterday that such a deal would create "a permanent occupation". He added: "The essence of this agreement is to turn the Iraqis into slaves of the Americans."
Certain media outlets, one of which is This is London, a branch of the UK's Evening Standard, are running stories about images that have appeared on websites devoted to militant Islamics. Problem is, the image everyone is concerned about is conceptual art from Bethesda's next game, Fallout 3.
This is London makes it sound all creepy:
Washington is laid to waste. The Capitol is a blackened, smoking ruin. The White House has been razed. Countless thousands are dead.
This is the apocalyptic scene terrorists hope to create if they ever get their hands on a nuclear bomb.
The computer-generated image below was posted on an Islamic extremists' website yesterday.
The caption for the image states: This computer generated image posted on terror forums depict what would happen if a nuclear attack took place in Washington D.C
You can find this very image in the art section for Fallout 3 here.
Back in 2003, the country of New Zealand passed the Prostitution Reform Act, which effectively decriminalized the world's oldest profession. Five years later, the Prostitution Law Review Committee was formed in order to create a report on how the Act has performed. Here's what they've found:
The total number of sex workers hasn't changed, with the current count holding steady at 2,332.
93% of prostitutes cite financial reasons for staying in the business.
"The most significant barriers to exiting are loss of income, reluctance to lose the flexible working hours available in the sex industry and the camaraderie and sense of belonging that some sex workers describe."
90% now feel they have legal rights.
60% feel more comfortable refusing service since the formation of the law.
Before the act, the illicit status of the industry meant workers were open to coercion and exploitation by managers, pimps and clients. Research indicated there had been "some improvement" in employment conditions "but this is by no means universal".
All in all, positive numbers that defy the preconception that legalizing prostitution leads to an explosion of "services".
Professor William Beeman of the University of Minnesota has passed along information to the Los Angeles Times, obtained from a "colleague with a U.S. Security clearance" that questions that validity of recent satellite photos depicting an alleged nuclear facility in Syria.
Not a big shock, given our recent track-record of half-assed intelligence reports and out-right lies.
Of note are several photographs that appear to have been digitally altered, one of which you'll find below.
The lower part of the building, the annex, and the windows pointing south appear much sharper than the rest of the photo, suggesting that they were digitally improved.
The author points to more questions about the photographs of the Syrian site.
Satellite photos of the alleged reactor building show no air defenses or anti-aircraft batteries such as the ones found around the Natanz nuclear site in central Iran.
The satellite images do not show any military checkpoints on roads near the building.
Where are the power lines? The photos show neither electricity lines or substations.
Here is a link to a photo of the North Korean facility that the Syrian site was based on. Look at all the buildings surrounding it. The Syrian site was just one building.
Head on over to the full article for more photos and further analysis.
So you spend £14,000 to create a new logo for the Office of Government Commerce. You slap the logo on mousepads and pens before letting the public or your employees view it, so confident that three simple letters, O-G-C, can do no wrong. Bzzzzz!
Unfortunately, when viewed from the vertical, the OGC logo looks like...well, this is a somewhat family-friendly site, so I'll let your creativity decipher the appearance.
There is an inordinate amount of talking heads on television debating the merits of Hillary Clinton continuing her campaign to win the Democratic nomination in the face of stubborn delegate math. How can she possibly win? The answer, according to this humorous video, is time travel. You won't hear this angle on CNN.
Say what you want about PETA, but you can't criticize the group for continually parading naked women in front of cameras in an effort to strengthen their cause for animal rights. In this case, two women are taking a shower right in the middle of Times Square. What was the issue again?
Perhaps the least-liked agency in the world is the IRS, surely followed by the DMV and the FCC. Basically, any agency with three letters in their acronym is undoubtedly evil.
Now that you've sent in your check and are brimming with rage at the unfairness of it all, you may want to have your say in an attempt to change how the IRS operates. Sounds like an uphill battle, but the IRS has just announced the formation of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel, which will be comprised of U.S. citizens who volunteer their participation.
According to the IRS:
As a Taxpayer Advocacy Panel member, you will:
Provide a taxpayer’s perspective on critical tax administration programs.
Serve in an advisory capacity to IRS through meetings and focus groups.
Solicit taxpayer input on specific issues and channel the feedback to the agency.
Identify, prioritize, and elevate taxpayer issues to the IRS as appropriate.
Applications for acceptance are now open and will expire on April 30, 2008. Requirements are simple: be a U.S. citizen, be current on your federal taxes, pass an FBI fingerprint check, and be willing to serve 300-500 volunteer hours over 3 years.
So there you have it. Now you can stop screaming at the walls and get involved, perhaps instigating some much needed change.
For most of us, the amount of coalition soldiers who have died in Iraq is nothing more than a passing number chroma-keyed on the nightly news. The number lacks context and location, something addressed by an intriguing internet presentation called Iraq War Coalition Fatalities.
The animation runs at ten frames per second with one frame equaling a single day. Keep in mind, this animation only covers coalition soldiers, as including Iraqis would probably make it explode.
Like a bunch of irresponsible teenagers running through a mall with a shiny new credit card, Federal employees are using government-issued cards to ring up millions of dollars in abusive spending, according to a new GAO report.
The GAO conducted an investigation of credit card abuse at such institutions as the Department of Defense, Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs, discovering mammoth fraud.
The review of card spending at more than a dozen departments from 2005 to 2006 found that nearly 41 percent of roughly $14 billion in credit-card purchases, whether legitimate or questionable, did not follow procedure — either because they were not properly authorized or they had not been signed for by an independent third party as called for in federal rules to deter fraud. For purchases over $2,500, nearly half — or 48 percent — were unauthorized or improperly received.
I can't sigh heavily enough. Keep in mind, this is your money that's being spent. Surely all these purchases are going to worthwhile items, right? Well, if you consider Internet dating, tailor-made suits, lingerie and expensive dinners worthwhile, then I guess you tax dollars are working for you.
Out of a sample of purchases totaling $2.7 million, the government could not account for hundreds of laptop computers, iPods and digital cameras worth more than $1.8 million. In one case, the U.S. Army could not say what happened to computer items making up 16 server configurations, each of which cost nearly $100,000.
Agencies often could not provide the required paperwork to justify questionable purchases. Investigators also found that federal employees sometimes double-billed or improperly expensed lavish meals and Internet dating for many months without question from supervisors; the charges were often noticed only after auditors or whistle-blowers raised questions.
More gory details on page 2, where you'll find a breakdown by government agency.
Well-known author Stephen King has been writing a column for Entertainment Weekly for several years now, covering a variety of topics in pop culture. In his latest entry, King takes on the topic of video game violence, specifically targeting a new bill in Massachusetts that would ban the sale of violent video games to children. Despite having little interest in gaming, King is no doubt passionate about the restriction of its creativity and market presence and how it relates to other formats.
What really makes me insane is how eager politicians are to use the pop culture — not just videogames but TV, movies, even Harry Potter — as a whipping boy. It's easy for them, even sort of fun, because the pop-cult always hollers nice and loud. Also, it allows legislators to ignore the elephants in the living room. Elephant One is the ever-deepening divide between the haves and have-nots in this country, a situation guys like Fiddy and Snoop have been indirectly rapping about for years. Elephant Two is America's almost pathological love of guns. It was too easy for critics to claim — falsely, it turned out — that Cho Seung-Hui (the Virginia Tech killer) was a fan of Counter-Strike; I just wish to God that legislators were as eager to point out that this nutball had no problem obtaining a 9mm semiautomatic handgun. Cho used it in a rampage that resulted in the murder of 32 people. If he'd been stuck with nothing but a plastic videogame gun, he wouldn't even have been able to kill himself.
Gun control is a separate can of worms that he couldn't help but open towards the end of his rant, but offers little criticism beyond what's quoted above. The rest is a compelling opinion piece on the video game violence debate from a rare source: someone who is both educated but not vested in its outcome. It's a great and welcome surprise to see a critic who is neither an industry veteran or an ignorant politician giving their two cents in a more mainstream outlet.
Jonathan Browning of ScreamingFrog recently posted a short film on YouTube that pokes a little fun at the never-ending immigration debate. At least, that's the official line. I really don't see this video as a commentary on immigration at all, but more of a jab at America's current economic turbulence and the possible future we may be careening towards.
Hillary Clinton has been receiving a lot of flak lately for her recent claim of being under sniper fire while visiting Bosnia in the 90s. The hardcore journalists over at Barely Political, sure to win a Pulitzer for this discovery, have unearthed new footage that proves Hillary saw more than her fair share of action.
