War could unshackle oil in Iraq

A U.S.-LED OUSTER of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could open a bonanza for American oil companies long banished from Iraq, scuttling oil deals between Baghdad and Russia, France and other countries, and reshuffling world petroleum markets, according to industry officials and leaders of the Iraqi opposition.

[...]

As if there has ever been any question about it.

There goal of ousting Saddam has little, if anything, to do with concerns about weaponry of mass distruction, moral or ethical objections to Saddam's regime or any of the other crap the government has been throwing at us.

Yes, there may be some legitimacy in those concerns, but they're not the reasons for this war.  Its the oil, and the money that Bush and Cheney's cronies in the oil industry stand to make if Iraq become friendlier towards the US, especially when it comes to letting us get oil out of there.

It's pretty sad, really, that the Iraqi people have been used as pawns for years by Saddam to maintain power and push his own agendas; now they're being used by our government to take power and push their agenda.  Maybe, someday, someone will actually care about them.

Asshole of the Week

Ever wish you could tell a CEO what you think of him?  (I write "him" because how many CEOs are not stupid white men?)  Well, now's your chance!

Dr. Jack Michel is the CEO of Larkin Community Hospital in South Miami, Fla., the CEO who made the decision to cancel the internships of three Arab-American men because a woman of questionable mental health claims to have overheard them discussing a terrorist plot in a restaurant last week.  He is the first Asshole of the Week.

[...]

Dr. Michel knew exactly what he was doing.  Before giving the three men a chance to clear their name, he decided to cancel their internships.  In a bullshit press release (see http://www.larkinhospital.com/press_releases.htm), he claimed, "We strongly believe that the students’ current notoriety could adversely affect the high quality of care we provide to our patients.  We also remain concerned for the safety of our patients, our staff, and the students due to the large number of disturbing e-mails and phone calls received at the hospital since Friday.  In addition, we felt that the students’ medical education would be adversely compromised due to the current national attention focused upon them."

Robert goes on to suggest writing to Dr. Michael and his boss to let them know just what you think of their cancellation of these student's internships.  Here is a copy of what I sent:

I am appalled that your institution would cancel the internships of three men who  have done nothing wrong and, in fact, are victims of the near-hysteria that exists over the possibility of terrorism-related incidents by Muslim- or Arab-appearing men.

In cancelling their internship, your institution is giving in to the baser fears - no matter how nobly you dress it up in statements of concern for your patients and the students themselves.  I doubt it is of much comfort to them to know that you have decided that it is in their best interest to be denied the opportunity to continue their education at this time.

I sincerely hope that you will reconsider this matter.  In a matter of a few days, the press and media hype about it will blow over, and the you, the students and your patients will be able to continue on with little further disruption.  I'm sure by now you must be aware that the American attention span isn't very great.

I urge you to show these students that America is not all about hatred or fear and let them continue with the lives they had underway before one person's ill-informed rush to judgement sidetracked them.

CLEAN FLICKS RETAILER SUES 16 DIRECTORS
A ruling that OKs practice of editing films for family viewing is sought.
By Ann Donahue and Dave McNary  8/29/2002

AUG. 29 | One week after getting word that the Directors Guild of America was planning to sue companies that specialize in excising objectionable material from movies, a retailer that sells and rents the edited videos has sued 16 high-profile Hollywood directors.

[...]

The plaintiffs are claiming that they have a First Amendment right to edit videos for private use. Huntsman said he has a patent pending for movie editing technology.

[...]

Huntsman noted that editing major features--such as removing blue language and nudity--is done for networks and showings on airlines.

"The directors allow those edits, but they've raised objections in the rental area," Huntsman added. "We think a jury will want to agree with us, that you shouldn't be required to watch what you find objectionable."

[...]

I wasn't aware that people were required to watch anything, actually. 

Here's what I don't understand.  The people who run this store are claiming they have a First Amendment right to edit movies that others have made, so that the movies fit in with their moral and ethical values. I'm just not sure how changing what someone else has already "said" (through their film) is "free speech" on the part of the companies editing the movies. 

I have to wonder how they would feel if someone took a good, wholesome, family-oriented movie, and, in order to fit in with their desire to see more sex and violence, added scenes of shoot-outs and orgies to it, and then rented it to whomever. I doubt many people would be willing to agree that they have a right to make such changes, and there'd certainly be an outcry over the "degredation" of these clean-cut films.

The other part of their argument is that the directors don't mind if the films are edited for TV, cruises, airplanes or other similar venues where it may be shown.  My suspicion, however, is that the agreements between the directors and the studios and the networks, cruise lines, and airline carriers have clauses in them that deal with the need for editing, and it may even include parameters as to what kind of editing can be done.  When a network pays for the right to broadcast a movie, they pay a great deal more money than someone buying a copy of a movie or DVD does.  As for cruises and airlines, they generally do not charge additional fees (above and beyond the cost of the tickets) for people to view the movies.  They're not just copies that are purchased, edited and then rented out for additional fees.  The copyright holders are properly compensated for the use of their work and have most likely had some control in how that work was eventually presented.

That's a big difference when compared to what these stores are doing - purchasing a single copy, editing it and then renting out copies of that.  While no one is obligated to rent a video for their stores, they are still practicing a form of censorship. And while they say that their copies are for private viewing use only, they are still being made available to the general public.

I would support the right of a family to purchase a DVD, and then have the parents edit out what they considered objectionable before showing the edited version to their children.  This I would consider a legitimate invocation of the "Fair Use" provision of the copyright laws.  The filmmakers are properly compensated for their work (through the purchase of the DVD) and then the family can determine for themselves what is appropriate for them to view. 

I understand why there would be a desire for a service such as this.  Perhaps some of the studios will realize that there might be money for them to make in creating their own cleaned-up copies of films and offering them as alternatives.  That would fill the niche that these video stores are currently exploiting and would offer the filmmakers greater control over and proper compensation for their work.

Forbidden thoughts about 9/11. From gloating about getting off work to enjoying the "country road" ambience of lower Manhattan to hating on-the-make firemen: A spectrum of improper responses to the terror attacks. [Salon Headlines]

In all the hubbub surrounding the 9/11 anniversary, it's sometimes hard to deal with not having all the required patriotic thoughts that we're expected to have.  Being human, we sometimes have thoughts that seem out of place, inappropriate or just downright wrong. But being members of a society that, in spite o all its protestations of freedom, expect conformity, we don't always know what we're supposed to DO with those thoughts.

For me, one of the most forbidden thoughts I've had has been, isn't in convenient how all this worked out - George manages to get an election that he arguably should have lost, and then gets a tragedy that allows him to start changing all our rules to mesh in with his "jokingly"-stated belief that things would just be a lot easier if this were a dictatorship and he were the dictator.

Now, I'm not accusing anyone of anything.  I don't even necssarily think (or, at least I don't necessarily WANT to think) that the government had any hand in planning this or foreknowledge of it - but at the same time the coincidence factor is pretty high, you know?

As for the near-mandetory patriotism that's grown out of the tragedy, I've found myself being quite cynical.  Waving a flag while we watch our leaders chip away at our rights and freedoms does nothing to support this country...  and all those flags seem to be keeping some people from seeing what's going on.  With it being so verbotten to question what our government wants to do (patriots always support the government, after all), its much harder to find ways of communicating appropriate concern for the treatment of potential terror suspects, plans such as the TIPS program, the holding of suspects without charges and with no judicial review of their cases and the other ways the government has stepped out of bounds.

At least once a day I see that "public service announcement" about how the terrorists thought they would change America forever - cut to a picture of a neighborhood with more flags than houses with a voice over telling us how they did.  But what have those flags really done for us?  Are we a more united country than we were before?  Well, we have waitresses accusing obviously Muslim men of being potential terrorists because she thought they were "joking" around about 9/11 (heaven forbid anyone do that!) and might have made a couple statements that could be interepreted as possibly being terroristic in nature - claims they flatly deny.  We have more hostility towards Muslims, Arabs, and those who look as if they could be Muslim or Arabic.  We have extreme anger because a man wants to return the Pledge of Allegiance to the way it was before Congress changed it in the 50's.  How dare someone think that it might be appropriate to rectify a violation of the separation of church and state?  We have people watching and listening to their neighbors with more suspicion than they used to, especially if that neighbor is a bit "odd" or "different" somehow.  The gaps between hawks and doves, liberals and conservatives, Christian and non, Republican and Democrat, and white and minorities seem to be growing daily.  Rhetoric is more contentious, and there's a sense of "either you're with us or your're against us".  So no, I don't think our sense of "patriotism" has helped unite us more than we were before 9/11.

Has it helped with supporting the economy?  The gulf between rich and poor keeps widening, and there's no sign to the end of the current recession.  Corporations are falling left and right to various accounting schemes and other forms of dishonesty.  Investors are worried, weakening the stock market, and consumers seem to be more interested in getting the most for their dollar than in buying American. 

In all honesty, I've seen very little benefit from the new patriotism. Sure, TV networks (including my beloved MSNBC) have begun their own flag waving to gain bigger audiences, and many products are being pitched with patriotic themes, but I can't say I feel any safer, any freer, any better off or any more secure than I did before 9/11, in spite of the near-constant reminders that I live in the greatest country in the world.

But I'm not supposed to say any of this, am I?