Yes, I am suffering from Monkey Brain again today so buckle your seat belt and let’s see where it leads….
First up is Senator Harry Reid, our Senate Majority Leader. This week they are on vacation from the Senate for Presidents Day (yeah, I know, we are lucky if we get one day off and our Senate takes the whole week, with pay!). Anyway, I guess he did not have anything better to do, so he decided to drop by the Nevada State Legislature and give them the benefit of his supreme wisdom. He told then that the way to fix Nevada’s budget problems was not by raising or lowering taxes either one. It also was not by increasing nor reducing regulations, and it was not even by asking the Fed’s for a bail out. According to Harry the time has come to abolish prostitution. It seems those darned prostitutes are the root of all Nevada’s economic woes!
“Nevada needs to be known as the first place for innovation and investment – not the last place where prostitution is still legal. When the nation thinks about Nevada, it should think about the world’s newest ideas and newest careers – not about its oldest profession. . . . If we want to attract business to Nevada that puts people back to work, the time has come to outlaw prostitution.”
Well, go figure…I guess all those college classmates and business associates going to Nevada all these years really were going just for the gambling….
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Speaking of Senators, out in California Senator Barbara Boxer (you know, the one that told the Army General not to call her “Mam” because she worked hard to earn the title ‘Senator’…) is nervous about the current Federal Ban on Offshore Drilling. You see, California has a budget deficit in the billions of dollars and people have begun pointing out that drilling would solve several problems. It would make the country less dependent on Middle Eastern oil, it would generate revenues for both the Federal Government and the State Government, and it would help keep the price of gas lower for us commoner’s type folks…. But no, Barbara wants nothing to do with all that logical argument stuff… She feels drilling will mean oil rigs ruining the seascapes and endangering the Sardinops sagax (Pacific Sardines). So for her first proposed legislation since her re-election, she is proposing a law to make drilling along the California Coast permanently illegal. Wow, what a great idea! Ahmadinejad jumped right in to support this one! It does my heart good to know we have such clear thinking people writing our laws. The rumor is that next month she is going to propose legislation to make it illegal for the moon to come out in day light because it is a waste of natural resources….
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Oh, oh…here’s a good one. Do you remember Jimmy McMillan? No? Well, he the founder of “The Rent Is Too Damned High Party” who gained national attention when he ran for Governor of New York last fall. It turns out that Jimmy has decided to throw his hat in the ring for President this time. One interesting part is that he has decided to leave the Democrats and run as a Republican. Newt Gingrich should be happy when he hears this quote:
“I didn’t get what I needed. The Democratic Party sucked. They’re using Barack Obama to get the young people to vote Democratic and they have no plans to help the people. It’s the same party that controlled the Congress for 40 years from 1994 down. 40 years they had control. And, from 1995, Republicans have been in office, they just don’t know what to do. I do. I’m here to help them.”
In an attempt to protect his family's fortunes, Muammar al- Qaddafi secretly deposited £3 billion --$4.8 billion -- with one of London's private wealth managers last week. This just ahead of the United States move to lock up the American assets of Friday the Libyan leader.
The deal brokered on Qaddafi’s behalf by a Swiss-based intermediary, who previously approached another well-known British stockbroking firm five weeks ago with a view to depositing funds. Unfortunately for Qaddafi, when that stockbroker discovered the ultimate identity of the source of the funds, it advised the intermediary to take his business elsewhere.
"I said no, because personally I'm not comfortable dealing with murdering tyrants with blood on their hands," the chief executive of the firm told The London Times.
On Friday, President Obama finally took a little positive action by imposing sanctions on Qaddafi’s government over a brutal crackdown on protesters. Obama wielded presidential power in an executive order, seizing assets and blocking any property in the U.S. belonging to Qaddafi or his children. In a statement, Obama said the measures were specifically targeted against the Qaddafi government and not the material wealth of the Libyan people themselves.
"By any measure, Qaddafi’s government has violated international norms and common decency and must be held accountable," Obama said in a statement. "These sanctions therefore target the Qaddafi government, while protecting the assets that belong to the people of Libya."
Qaddafi, whose 42-year regime is closer to collapse than ever, has been secreting money out of his oil-rich but financially impoverished nation and into private accounts around the world. The U.K. Treasury stepped up efforts to trace and freeze Qaddafi’s assets in Britain Friday, which are believed to include billions of dollars in bank accounts, some commercial property and a $16-billion mansion (yeah, billion, I asked the same question, how do you build a mansion worth that much?) in London.
The Swiss Government told its banks Friday to freeze any assets belonging to Qaddafi, issuing a comprehensive blocking order covering 29 people, including the dictator's wife and children, some of his wife's relatives and six officials of the regime.
Also Friday, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton welcomed action by the U.N. Human Rights Council "in condemning human rights violations and violence committed by the Libyan government against its own people."
"We strongly support the Council's establishment of an independent commission of inquiry to investigate these violations with a view towards ensuring that those responsible are held accountable," Clinton said. Clinton also said the U.S. would work to build support for a resolution to suspend Libya from the council, with talks set to resume Saturday. . –Thanks Hillary, that should do almost as much good as telling him you are going to cancel his visa.
Qaddafi made a surprise appearance in Tripoli's Green Square earlier Friday, telling supporters to "prepare to defend Libya". The erratic, unpredictable Qaddafi, speaking from atop a rampart in images shown on state television, also declared arms depots would be open to his supporters if necessary.
As for the protesters whose weeks of battles with government troops vastly weakened his onetime stranglehold on power, Qaddafi vowed, "we will fight them and beat them."
Wearing what was described as a winter jacket and a hunter's cap, and thrusting his arms into the air and shaking his fists, Qaddafi told the cheering crowd, "Life without dignity has no value, life without green flags has no value. Sing, dance and prepare yourselves."
There were reports of intense clashes Friday in the streets of Tripoli, although no casualty toll was immediately available. However, Libya's former deputy U.N. ambassador said "thousands" had been killed since fighting erupted in the country Feb. 15.
As the situation in Libya deteriorated, White House spokesman Jay Carney announced the suspension of U.S. embassy operations in Tripoli. The State Department advised a plane left for Istanbul, Turkey Friday afternoon carrying American citizens, and Fox News Channel said these included the last remaining embassy personnel.
In Tripoli, several witnesses said clashes had erupted in multiple parts of the city after Friday afternoon prayers. One witness said protesters in western Tripoli were met by plainclothes security forces who fired guns at them and later used tear gas to disperse the crowds.
"We're all in our houses like we're sitting in jail," a Tripoli resident said Thursday. "We can't go outside or we get shot. We hear the bullets."
Qaddafi’s eldest son, Saif al-Islam Qaddafi, in an interview with CNN-Turk Television taped Friday in Tripoli, vowed his father would never depart.
Asked if Qaddafi had a "Plan B" to leave Libya, his son replied, "We have Plan A, Plan B, Plan C. Plan A is to live and die in Libya. Plan B is to live and die in Libya. Plan C is to live and die in Libya."
French President Nicolas Sarkozy became the first world leader to bluntly demand Qaddafi’s ouster. "Mr. Qaddafi must go," Sarkozy said during a visit to Turkey. "The systematic violence against the Libyan people is unacceptable and will be the subject of investigations and sanctions."
~~~~~~~~~
Coke Sign Must Go As It Promotes Obesity
Sometime there are stories you just can not make up. In this case, San Francisco residents are divided over a vintage Coca-Cola sign decorating the side of a San Francisco house. City officials say the painted sign in the Bernal Heights neighborhood violates anti-billboard laws and must come down. But, that's not the only offensive thing about Richard Modolo's sign. Some residents also want it removed, saying it promotes obesity by advertising a sugary drink (the Food Police are out in San Francisco, hide your Twinkies).
Supporters of the sign, which may date back to the 1930s, argue that it's a relic from the neighborhood's working-class past. Supervisor David Campos, who represents the neighborhood, is weighing both sides and will decide whether to introduce legislation to keep the sign (I hope he does, just to annoy the Food Nazis). Meanwhile, Modolo has been told by the city that he could face a daily fine of $100 until the sign is gone (that is one money grubbing city, trust me).
CNN broke a very alarming story about an Iranian plot to assassinate an Iranian dissident living here in southern California. According to police reports and classified U.S. diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks, a Los Angeles suburb was the scene of the assassination plot. The plot involved the would-be killers hiding out in a low-budget motel with a plan that first involved shooting the victim, but later changed to running him over with a van.
The plan went bad in 2009, when the would-be hit man hired by an Iranian national named Reza Sadeghnia got cold feet and called police. "This person went on to tell us that for the past four days, they together had been scheming how to assassinate, how to kill another Glendora resident," Staab said.
Police said the target was Jamshid Sharmahd, an Iranian-American dissident who is the radio voice of a group called Tondar, devoted to the overthrow of the Iranian government. The Iranian government calls Tondar a terrorist group, but the U.S. State Department says it is only a propaganda outlet.
According to police reports, the informant offered proof: the purchase of a cheap van from a used-car dealer that would be used to run down and kill the target. He told detectives he had been paid $5,000 to kill Sharmahd, with another $27,000 delivered to his mother back in Iran. The plotters decided to use a van after deciding that buying a gun would be too risky.
Sadeghnia
The informant told police that Sadeghnia, the mastermind, had fled Glendora and was about to leave Los Angeles on a plane. Staab said Glendora detectives found him in an airport hotel under his own name and arrested him. Along with his laptop computer, police seized $2,100 in cash. "They were crisp $100 bills. There was a stack of them. And around it was a bank wrapping, and they were all written in Farsi," he said.
Sharmahd said there was "no doubt" that the plot against him involved the Iranian government. He said the motive was not only to kill him, but also to replace both Tondar's website and its radio broadcasts with fakes in an attempt to hijack the movement.
Sadeghnia ultimately pleaded guilty to a charge of solicitation of murder and was jailed for eight months. After he was released from prison in 2010, Sadeghnia applied for permission to leave the United States while he was on five years' probation and visit Iran for one month "to visit his dying father," according to probation reports. His first application was denied, but a second request was granted a few weeks later on the condition that he return no later than October 27. He has not been seen in the United States since. Probation officials would not comment on the decision.
Why this story did not, and has not, gained wide public attention is shocking. It is widely known that the Iranian regime has carried out literally hundreds of assassinations of dissidents in Europe since coming to power in 1979 this attempt, carried out here in the United Sates in 2009 is outrageous and should have been widely reported! That combined with the very light sentence (serving only 8 months and allowed probation) and he fact that while on probation he was allowed to return to Iran of all places should make all of us just plain angry!
~~~~
Gadhafi's rants make for good television, but pay attention to what happens in Bahrain.
Bahrain lies in the middle of an age-old conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia... and the balance between the two rivals could soon be tipped in a bad direction…
Iraq, when it was a strong influence in the area, was a nice buffer between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Unfortunately, a strong Iraq is no longer exists. Now there's unrest in Bahrain, whose Shiite majority lives under Sunni rule. If the protests in Bahrain lead to concessions for the Shia, it could energize Saudi Arabia's Shiite minority. And in the Middle Eastern balance of power, a weaker Saudi Arabia means a potentially stronger Iran.
Why does this matter? 40% of the world's seaborne oil passes through the very narrow Strait of Hormuz every day. Iran is on one side; what if it were on both... Imagine the disruption to the world economy if Iran mined the strait.
Sometimes it is good to take a short break from the often depressing headlines and news stories of the day. I found a great little news story in the Washington Journal that fits the needs very nicely. It seems one of those dreaded Home Owners Associations got “the wool pulled over their eyes” and wound up electing a dog as their President. Here is the story:
Like many another Home Owners Association the Hillbrook-Tall Oaks Civic Association in Annandale elects it officers from among it’s members –usually choosing the best qualified from among those willing to volunteer for the somewhat thankless duties of the various officers. Once the meeting is concluded and the new officers elected, everyone, eats ice cream, chats with neighbors and goes home.
To make the meeting move faster his past election, only the names and qualifications of the candidates were announced. Running for president, Ms. Beatha Lee was described as a new resident, interested in neighborhood activities and the outdoors, and who had experience in Maine overseeing an estate of 26 acres.
Though unfamiliar with Lee's name, about 50 of the members raised their hands, assuming that the candidate was a civic-minded newcomer and willing to serve. It's hard to get anyone to volunteer to devote the time needed to serve as an officer. The slate that Lee headed was unanimously elected. Everyone ate ice cream, watched a karate demonstration and went home.
Some weeks later they started to discover that their new president was, in fact, a dog. Beatha Lee, is a shaggy, dirty-white wheaten terrier. The news broke in the association's newsletter with Lee's promise to "govern with an even paw." The dog's photo appeared under the heading, "Dog Rules, Humans Apathetic (Pathetic)." A real storm erupted in the neighborhood of about 250 families with about 90 dogs.
"She had a name," said Robin Klein Browder, who grew up in the neighborhood. "It wasn't Spot or Rover. It was a first and last name, so everyone thought she was human. I'm not thrilled, I'm embarrassed."
"At first, people would say to me, 'This is crazy!' " said Helen Winter, a director emeritus of the board who is in her 80s and is a major force behind the neighborhood watch, the welcoming committee and the annual block party. "And I'd say, 'It is crazy. Isn't that fun?' It's one of those things that breaks the monotony."
Dave Frederickson, who read the dog's name and qualifications to the crowd at the annual meeting, said: "Many people, like myself, were amused. But some were extremely upset. I've spent a lot of time on the phone explaining things."
The duly elected president is actually the pet of the former president, Mark Crawford, who inherited Beatha (pronounced Bee-AH-tah) in 2008 from his mother and stepfather in Maine.
Crawford had served three consecutive terms as president and, according to association bylaws, could not run for the office again. For weeks leading up to the election, he begged, pleaded and cajoled neighbors to run for the often-thankless volunteer post. No one bit. Newer, younger families told him that they were too busy juggling work, long commutes and kids. And longtime residents, many burned out after losing a bruising zoning battle against a Montessori school in their neighborhood, said they'd already done their time.
Out of sheer frustration, Crawford decided to put up his dog.
"This isn't a power trip," said Crawford, who now serves as vice president under his pooch. "We wanted to send a message to the neighborhood that they needed to get involved and get engaged. That they can't count on the same people to do this year in and year out."
Crawford and the nominating committee carefully scanned Article V of their bylaws on officer qualifications. Resident of the neighborhood: Check. Attained the age of majority: Check (in dog years). "Our charter language did not mention that a human had to serve," Crawford said. "The way it was phrased was very accommodating, to be frank."
Those same bylaws also outline the fairly substantial duties of the president, everything from running meetings and appointing committee members to executing contracts and co-signing checks. Not to mention speaking for the association at public meetings. So how has the canine managed? "Well, she delegates a lot," Crawford said. "That's what executives are supposed to do - delegate."
The dog occasionally attends the monthly board meetings, usually held the first Tuesday or Wednesday of the month in Crawford's home. "She's sometimes sitting under the table, listening to what goes on," Frederickson said. "Until she gets bored and wants to be let out. I don't know if the board members need to pet her on their way in."
Crawford and the other seven human board members have kept the annual block parties and ice cream socials running without a hitch - the president was too out of sorts to attend. Other than a few rumblings about speed bumps and tree trimming, it has been a pretty quiet year for the association. "We're dealing with things like trying to get our phone book out," Crawford said. "Pretty mundane stuff."
Over time, the neighbors have come to accept their new leader.
"It doesn't surprise me one bit that a dog is the president - our neighborhood is so dog-friendly," said Meghan Pituch Myers, who moved in a little over a year ago. "We often find ourselves referencing people by their dogs - 'I saw Daisy's mom today at the store.' "
So has the ploy worked? Are people getting more involved? Crawford said it's too early to tell. Browder, whose father ran the association when she was a girl and whose husband also served as president, said she might be willing. "If we elected a dog, I'm thinking, okay, maybe I better do my duty," she said.
But if she doesn't, "maybe we'll get a cat this time," groused longtime resident Dave Borowski. Added Frederickson: "We're hoping for a Homo sapiens."
Hackers working from China broke into the computer systems of five of our multinational oil and gas companies to steal bidding plans and other critical proprietary information, the computer security firm McAfee said in a report.
The report, which named the attacks ‘Night Dragon’, declined to identify the five known companies that had been hacked and said that another seven or so had also been broken into but could not be identified.
"It ... speaks to quite a sad state of our critical infrastructure security. These were not sophisticated attacks ... yet they were very successful in achieving their goals," said Dmitri Alperovitch, McAfee's vice president for threat research.
The hackers got into the computers in one of two ways, either through their public websites or through infected emails sent to company executives.
During the at least two years -- and up to four years -- the hackers had access to the computer networks, they focused on financial documents related to oil and gas field exploration and bidding contracts, said Alperovitch. They also copied proprietary industrial processes.
"That information is tremendously sensitive and would be worth a huge amount of money to competitors," said Alperovitch.
The hack was traced back to China via a server leasing company in Shandong Province that hosted the malware (another term for malicious software) and to Beijing IP addresses that were active from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Beijing time (0100-0900 GMT). McAfee's report did not identify who was behind the hacking.
"We have no evidence that this is government sponsored in any way," said Alperovitch. McAfee provided the data to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which did not respond to requests for comment.
"This is normal business practice in China. It's not always state sponsored. And they do it to each other," said Jim Lewis, a cyber expert with the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank. Asked if Beijing normally agreed to arrest hackers, Lewis responded: "It's not impossible, but it hasn't happened very often."
The Chinese government often says their country is also a victim of hacking. But Foreign Ministry spokesman Ma Zhaoxu told reporters at a regular press briefing on Thursday in Beijing that he was unaware of this case. "I really have no grasp of this situation, but we frequently hear about these types of reports," Ma said.
Western governments and companies have been concerned about corporate espionage based in China for a long time. "We are aware of these types of threats, but we can't comment specifically about what's in the Night Dragon report," said FBI spokeswoman Jenny Shearer. Washington believes that hacking attacks on Google that briefly prompted the company to pull out of China were orchestrated by two members of the country's ruling body, according to U.S. diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks. As I blogged about not long ago, the French government is also looking into a possible Chinese role in spying on carmaker Renault SA's and Nissan's electric vehicle program.
In 2007, a Chinese student working at car parts maker Valeo was sentenced to prison for obtaining confidential documents from the automaker. A French tribunal stopped short of an industrial espionage verdict, instead finding that she had "abused trust." The French are good at investigating, but not much on acting….
Once again, I had posted a regular addition to my blog (see below) when world events overtook me. I have been blogging my outrage about the mounting piracy problem, particularly around the Horn of Africa by mainly Somali Pirates. I am sorry to have to say that his tragic incident yesterday just did not surprise me at all. Many of us have been warning about this happening with increased frequency for 2 years now. In case you missed the news reports, here is the Statement from CentCom (U.S. Central Command):
During the boarding of the Quest, the reaction force was engaged by pirates on board the vessel. Two pirates died during the confrontation and 13 were captured and detained along with two pirates already in US Forces custody. The US Forces also found the remains of two other pirates already dead aboard the Quest. In total, it is believed 19 pirates were involved in the hijacking of the S/V Quest.
US Forces have been closely monitoring the S/V Quest for approximately 3 days, once it became known to be pirated. Four U.S. Navy warships comprised the response force dedicated to recovering the S/V Quest: the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise (CVN 65), the guided-missile cruiser USS Leyte Gulf (CG 55), the guided-missile destroyers USS Sterett (DDG 104) and USS Bulkeley (DDG 84). The ships are deployed to the region to conduct maritime security operations and to provide support to operations Enduring Freedom and New Dawn.
When these attacks began several years ago, the United States Navy had few assets in the area and did virtually no “anti-piracy patrolling”. Today the U.S. Navy has a substantial presence in the area, as does several other countries including England, France, the Netherlands, India and even China as well as others. The problem now is that “international law” prevents active enforcement. In other words, they have to wait to be attacked before they can act, which is a form of insanity. Until our military units are allowed to become aggressively pro-active and strike the pirates before they have a chance to attack, this will continue to be a series of tragic situations and shipping lines will continue to lose millions and millions of dollars (which is passed on to us consumers, of course).
I have been monitoring the protests in Iran and a very alarming picture is unfolding from the few reports getting through. This morning there were several reports of “a new tear gas” being used by Iranian Security against the protestors. There is a Facebook site where they are pleading for chemists and medical professionals to help them identify this “new tear gas” and to give advise on how to treat those exposed to it. Here is a quote from one report from a Middle Eastern news source describing the “new tear gas”:
"Shadi Sadr, an Iranian human rights lawyer, told the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran that at least three people who participated in the 14 February protests have expressed that the tear gas used against the protesters was different from the ones used previously. According to the three individuals, when they returned home after exposure to the tear gas, they suffered symptoms such as severe nausea, vomiting blood, and loss of voice and their symptoms have not yet subsided.
According to an opinion issued by the Iranian Armed Forces Legal Office, though use of tear gas is not considered a crime, “any type of bodily injury to others which according to Islamic Penal Code is recognized eligible for payment of Diya [blood money] or Qisas [retribution], is considered a crime and it may be pursued in qualified judicial courts. Type of the instrument used in creating the bodily harm is irrelevant to whether or not a crime has taken place.” “I know of three people who are suffering from pains which were unprecedented as compared to the previous occasions. One of them had severe nausea and vomited blood, to the point where he was seen by a doctor and has had to take tests. One of them continues to have no voice through today and cannot be heard even 10 centimeters away. All three are suffering from severe muscular pains and cramps,” Shadi Sadr told the Campaign. The distinguished Iranian lawyer also said that other people who attended the 14 February gatherings have confirmed the symptoms of this tear gas through her Google Reader. A source reliable to Ms. Sadr told her “My friend told me today that she and at least three other people are suffering from body aches, sore throat, and severe cold-like symptoms.” They also reported that they were previously exposed to tear gas, but they had never experienced such symptoms before.”
If these reports are true, and there is no reason to doubt them, this “new tear gas” is not tear gas (CS) at all. It is, in fact, a military grade chemical warfare agent! This type of agent is illegal, especially when used against defenseless civilians. There is a very real possibility that heavy exposure to these chemicals could lead to permanent symptoms and may even be terminal. The international community –human rights groups and United Nations groups - with agents in Iran, should be investigating this immediately.
The last time we saw Chemical Warfare gents used against innocent civilians was when Saddam Hussan ordered them used against Kurdish Villages in Northern Iraq.
This developing situation needs to be closely watched. Most likely we will learn about it in the coming days when more poisoned protesters make known the results of their medical tests and their symptoms.
I wrote a regular post for today’s blog (see below) and had posted it when I realized that today is also George Washington’s Birthday. I simply could not let that pass without mention.
As a young man growing up in America I knew who George Washington was and very often herd him referred to as the “Father of our country”. I did not, however study the man, nor was there very much taught about him in the schools. As I became older and my personal interest in history grew, I frankly paid more attention to great leaders from the past, such as Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar. It was not until I began studying American History that I read my first biography of George Washington and my admiration for him grew to the point where I now rate him as the greatest of all the great men in history (excluding religious figures, of course). I am not going to do an in depth discussion of his many, many accomplishments and admirable traits here, but I will include a brief biography, purely out of personal respect.
George Washington (February 22, 1732 – December 14, 1799) was the dominant military and political leader of the new United States of America from 1775 to 1799. It is safe to say that the United States of America, as we know it today, would not exist except for this man. He led the American victory over Britain in the American Revolutionary War as commander in chief of the Continental Army in 1775–1783, and he presided over the writing of the Constitution in 1787. As the unanimous choice (and only one to achieve that) to serve as the first President of the United States (1789–1797), he developed the forms and rituals of government that have been used ever since, such as using a cabinet system and delivering an inaugural address. As President, he built a strong, well-financed national government that avoided war, suppressed rebellion and won acceptance among Americans of all types.
Washington had a vision of a great and powerful nation that would be built on republican lines using federal power. He sought to use the national government to improve the infrastructure, open the western lands, create a national university, promote commerce, found a capital city (later named Washington, D.C.), reduce regional tensions and promote a spirit of nationalism. "The name of American," he said, must override any local attachments. At his death, Washington was hailed as "first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen". As the leader of the first successful revolution against a colonial empire in world history, Washington became an international icon for liberation and nationalism. His symbolism especially resonated in France and Latin America. Historical scholars consistently rank him as one of the two or three greatest presidents.
One thing he did that demonstrates the character of the man was turning down a crown when, after winning the revolutionary war, he was asked to be the first “King of America”. Then, after serving two terms as President and guiding the formation of the national government, he set the precedent for a smooth transition of power by insisting on turning power over to an elected candidate, retiring from politics for the remainder of his life.
In a government dominated by Islamic Theology, such as seen in Iran these days and in places like Afghanistan under the Taliban, Sharia Law is enforced as the primary judicial authority. There are a number of things which are forbidden or restricted under Sharia Law which we, in the West, consider either “more acceptable and less serious” or just not a crime at all. I have chosen just one such law to make my point here. Under Sharia Law any two people engaging in sex, who are not married, are guilty of adultery. The usual punishment is public flogging, nominally 100 lashes. If either or both of the involved parties are married (to some one else of course) then the Adultery is a "capital offense" and the punishment is stoning.
Now the death penalty seems harsh enough, but I want you to consider just what “stoning” is for a moment. Most of us have seen movies where people have been stoned and it looks fairly barbaric, but let me tell you, what they do under Sharia Law makes those movie scenes look like a slap on the wrist. The best way for me to make this point is to show you a You Tube video clip, smuggled out of Iran in 1991. In it you will see a man, charged with Adultery, who is first taken before an Islamic Judge, is then flogged (100 lashes), tied up in a sheet, placed in a hole and buried up to his neck -and then stoned by a crowd repeatedly shouting “Allah Akbar” (God is Great).
I warn you, before you watch it –it is graphic and disturbing (a man, a human being, is beaten and killed brutally) –you may not want to watch it.
Any religious group that can so readily justify such barbaric behavior does not yet understand he concept of "civilized behavior" or the term "human understanding". If you do watch this clip, you will understand why any attempt, any, to bring Sharia Law into Western Society must be vigorously and rigorously opposed!
Posted at 11:18 am pst:I am taking the unusual step of posting this during the day because reports indict=ate things are changing fast in Libya.
In Libya, Moammar Gadhafi has reportedly ordered the Libyan Air Force to open fire on military installations. This could indicate a serious escalation of opposition to Gadhafi from within the military itself! In addition, Al Jazeera has suggested that the Air Force has also opened fire on crowds of protesters.
Though the latter would be particularly outrageous, the more important question is whether these signs indicate Gadhafi is using military force to crush opposition to his regime emerging from the military or other security forces. Similar reports of the Libyan Navy firing on targets onshore also are emerging, as well as reports that Gadhafi has given execution orders to soldiers who have refused to fire on Libyan protesters.
The use of conventional “military” weaponry is important and should be watched carefully because it could indicate that it is needed to be used against other “military” target, such as rebelling military units.
The situation remains unclear, but these latest developments combined with mounting evidence of defections by military units to the demonstrators’ side could be the first signs of the possibility that the regime is fracturing.
I have been trying to get reports on what is happening in Libya to see if our old nemesis, Col. Gadhafi, is going to survive the unrest. Although I initially felt that he had such a strong hold on power, with the strong backing of the military (something Mubarak did not enjoy), I did not think he was in real danger of being deposed. However, based on reports coming out yesterday and today, that assumption may need re-evaluating. Emerging reports indicate that the unrest is spreading to the capital of Tripoli. Heavy gunfire was reported in central Tripoli and in other districts with Al Jazeera reporting 61 people killed in Tripoli on Feb. 21. Other unconfirmed reports say that protesters attacked the headquarters of ‘Al-Jamahiriya Two’ television and Al-Shababia as well as other government buildings in Tripoli overnight. The People’s Conference Centre where the General People’s Congress (parliament) meets when it is in session in Tripoli was set on fire. British Petroleum reportedly said it would evacuate its personnel from Libya and suspend its activities due to massive unrest. Spain’s Foreign Minister Trinidad Jimenez said that the EU member states are coordinating possible evacuations of European nationals from Libya. A Turkish Airlines flight was arranged to evacuate Turkish citizens from Benghazi but was denied the opportunity to land by Libyan authorities and returned to Turkey.
Clashes have been going on between the protesters and military and security forces in mostly eastern cities of the country and in Benghazi in particular, where opposition against Moammar Gadhafi is intense. Signs of protests apparently intensified following a speech made by Ghaddafi’s son Seif al-Islam. Seif al-Islam was attempting to present himself as the new and unsullied face of the regime, reiterating the political, social and economic reforms that he has long advocated were needed to hold Libya’s tribal society together. Though in his speech Seif al-Islam carefully distanced himself from old-regime tactics, protesters in Tripoli reportedly rejected the young Libyan leader and began chanting slogans against Seif al-Islam.
Seif al-Islam implied in his speech that he had the approval of his father and elements within the military, and that the army and national guard would be relied on to crack down on “seditious elements” spreading unrest. However, unconfirmed reports of army defections in Benghazi and Baida in eastern Libya and now spreading unrest to Tripoli is casting some doubt on the regime’s ability to count on the full loyalty and ability of the army to contain the situation. Without full backing of the army, Gadhafi’s days may well be numbered.
Employees of the world, you may relax: It is safe to comment in Facebook again.
In a law suit filed last year the National Labor Relations Board took a Connecticut ambulance service to court after it fired an emergency medical technician (EMT) who voiced opinions the company did not like on Facebook. They argued that her comments may have been negative, but they were protected speech under federal labor laws.
The government agreed, settling the lawsuit against American Medical Response of Connecticut. The company agreed to change its blogging and Internet policy, which had barred workers from disparaging the company or its supervisors. The company also will revise another policy that prohibited employees from depicting the company in any way over the Internet without permission.
"I think it certainly sends a message about what the NLRB views the law to be," said Jonathan Kreisberg, a NLRB regional director who approved the settlement.
"The fact that they agreed to revise their rules so that they're not so overly restrictive of the rights of employees to discuss their terms and conditions with others and with their fellow employees is the most significant thing that comes out of this," Kreisberg said.
Terms of a private settlement agreement between the employee and the company were not disclosed, but Kreisberg said the parties reached a financial settlement. The employee will not be returning to work there.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You May Relax, Doomsday Has Been Determined and it is Not 2012
Asteroid Apophis Could Strike Earth in 2036.
The date for Armageddon is apparently not happening in 2012. The Mayans missed it by a mere 17 years. Not bad for dudes in loincloths and without computers or cell phones.
In 2004, NASA scientists announced that there was a chance that Apophis, an asteroid larger than two football fields, might smash into Earth in 2029. However, after some additional observations and recalculating, astronomers decided that the chance of the planet-killer hitting Earth in 2029 was nearly zilch.
Now, reports out of Russia say that scientists there estimate Apophis will collide with Earth on April 13, 2036. Although reports conflict on the probability of such a doomsday event, the question is: Just how scared should we be?
Our own scientists are more optimistic about our survival.
“Technically, they’re correct, there is a chance in 2036 [that Apophis will hit Earth]," said Donald Yeomans, head of NASA’s Near-Earth Object Program Office. However, that chance is just 1-in-250,000, Yeomans said.
The Russian scientists are basing their predictions of a collision on the chance that the 900-foot-long (270 meters) Apophis will travel through what’s called a gravitational keyhole as it passes by Earth in 2029. The gravitational keyhole they mention is a precise region in space, only slightly larger than the asteroid itself, in which the effect of Earth's gravity is such that it could tweak Apophis' path.
Russia is considering sending a spacecraft to a large asteroid to knock it off its path and prevent a possible collision with Earth. Just how would we prevent asteroids from colliding with Earth?
“The situation is that in 2029, April 13, [Apophis] flies very close to the Earth, within five Earth radii, so that will be quite an event, but we’ve already ruled out the possibility of it hitting at that time,” Yeomans told Life’s Little Mysteries. “On the other hand, if it goes through what we call a keyhole during that close Earth approach … then it will indeed be perturbed just right so that it will come back and smack Earth on April 13, 2036,” Yeomans said.
The chances of the asteroid going through the keyhole, which is tiny compared to the asteroid, are “minuscule,” Yeomans added.
The more likely scenario is this: Apophis will make a fairly close approach to Earth in late 2012 and early 2013, and will be extensively observed with ground-based optical telescopes and radar systems. If it seems to be heading on a destructive path, NASA will devise the scheme and machinery necessary to change the asteroid’s orbit, decreasing the probability of a collision in 2036 to zero, Yeomans said.
There are several ways to change an asteroid’s orbit, the simplest of which is to run a spacecraft into the hurtling rock. This technology was used on July 4, 2005, when Deep Impact smashed into the comet Tempel 1.
Pakistan has traditionally been considered an ally of the United States, but the strong Islamic influence in the country has opposed this association and is very anti-American. Since 9/11 Pakistan has been a key player in the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban but their cooperation has been highly questionable at best. Over the past few years the relationship between the United States and Pakistan has been strained. The tension is evidenced by both public opinion (in Pakistan) and by concrete examples. For example, in mid-December, the CIA station chief in Islamabad was forced to leave the country after his name was disclosed in a class-action lawsuit brought by relatives of civilians killed by unmanned aerial vehicle strikes in the Pakistani tribal badlands.
The Pakistani lawsuit against the CIA station chief was no coincidence. It occurred shortly after the head of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence directorate, Lt. Gen. Ahmed Shuja Pasha, was accused in a civil lawsuit of being involved in the 2008 attacks in Mumbai. The suit was brought in U.S. District Court in Brooklyn by family members of the American rabbi killed alongside his wife in Mumbai by Pakistan-based Islamist militants.
Like Iraq, Pakistan is a country that has seen considerable controversy over American security contractors over the past several years. The government of Pakistan has gone after security contractor companies like DynCorp and its Pakistani affiliate InterRisk and Xe (formerly known as Blackwater), which has become the Pakistani version of the bogeyman. In addition to the clandestine security and intelligence work the company was conducting in Pakistan, in 2009 the Taliban even began to blame Xe for suicide bombing attacks that killed civilians. The end result is that American security contractors have become extremely unpopular in Pakistan. They are viewed not only as an affront to Pakistani sovereignty but also as trigger-happy killers.
This is the environment in which the ‘Davis shooting’ occurred. Even though some Pakistani civilians apparently came forward and reported that they had been robbed at gunpoint by the men Davis shot, other Pakistani groups like the Jamaat-ud-Dawah (JuD) — the successor to the Lashkar-e-Taiba, which was presumably banned by the Pakistani government — have demanded that Davis be hanged. The Jamaat-e-Islami (JeI), an Islamist political party, has also demanded that Davis be hanged and has called for large protests if he is released without a court order. Interest in this issue is not just confined to Islamist groups. There are some right-wing conservative nationalists and even some secular liberals who are asking: “If the United States can give CIA shooter Mir Amal Kansi the death penalty, why can’t Pakistan do the same thing to Davis?”
The result is that the Davis case has aroused much controversy and passion in Pakistan. This not only complicates the position of the Pakistani government but also raises the distinct possibility that there will be civil unrest if Davis is released.
On Feb. 13, the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) issued a statement demanding that the government of Pakistan execute U.S. government contractor Raymond Davis or turn him over to the TTP for judgment. Davis, a contract security officer for the CIA, has been in Pakistani custody since a Jan. 27 incident in which he shot two men who reportedly pointed a pistol at him in an apparent robbery attempt.
Pakistani officials have corroborated Davis’ version of events and, according to their preliminary report, Davis appears to have acted in self-defense. From a tactical perspective, the incident appears to have been (in tactical security parlance) a “good shoot,” but the matter has been taken out of the tactical realm and has become mired in transnational politics and Pakistani public sentiment. Whether the shooting was justified or not, Davis has now become a pawn in a larger game being played out between the United States and Pakistan.
Unless the Pakistani government is willing and able to defuse the situation, the case could indeed provoke violent protests against the United States, and U.S. citizens and businesses in Pakistan should be prepared for this backlash.
Details of the Case
Raymond Davis claims that after he had withdrawn money from an ATM and was driving back to his place of employment 2 armed men followed him and attempted to rob him. He shoot and killed both men in self-defense. His version of what happened has been verified by witnesses at the scene. One of the reasons that the Pakistanis have been able to retain Davis in custody is that while he may have been traveling on a “black” diplomatic U.S. passport, not everyone who holds a diplomatic passport is afforded full diplomatic immunity. The only people afforded full diplomatic immunity are those who are on a list of diplomats officially accredited as diplomatic agents by the receiving country. The rest of the foreign employees at an embassy or a consulate in the receiving country who are not on the diplomatic list and who are not accredited as diplomatic agents under the Vienna Convention are only protected from prosecution related to their official duties.
As a contract employee assigned to the U.S. Consulate in Lahore, Davis was likely not on the diplomatic list and probably did not enjoy full diplomatic immunity. Protecting himself during a robbery attempt would not be considered part of his official function in the country, and therefore his actions that day would not be covered under functional immunity.
In all likelihood, Davis was briefed regarding his legal status by his company and by the CIA prior to being assigned. He also would have been told that, while he had limited immunity, the U.S. government would do its best to take care of him if some incident occurred. However, it would have been made clear to him that in working as a protective contractor he was running a risk and that if there was an incident on or off duty, he could wind up in trouble. All security contractors working overseas know this and accept the risk as part of the job.
At the time of the shooting, of course, Davis would not have had time to leisurely ponder this potential legal quagmire. He saw a threat and reacted to it. Undoubtedly, the U.S. government will do all it can to help Davis out — especially since the case appears to be a good-shoot scenario and not a case of negligence or bad judgment. Indeed, on Feb. 15, U.S. Sen. John Kerry flew to Islamabad in a bid to seek Davis’ release. However, in spite of American efforts and international convention, Davis’ case is complicated greatly by the fact that he was working in Pakistan and by the current state of U.S.-Pakistani relations.
Civil Unrest in Pakistan
Like many parts of the developing world, civil unrest in Pakistan can quickly turn to extreme violence. One example is the November 1979 incident in which an enraged mob seized and destroyed the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad. While there were only two Americans killed in that incident the fire that the mob set inside the building very nearly killed all the employees who had sought shelter in the embassy’s inner safe-haven area. Two local Pakistani staff members were also killed in the fire.
The 1979 attack was said to have been sparked by reports that the U.S. government was behind an assault on the Grand Mosque in Mecca by Saudi militants the day before. In reality, the mob that stormed and torched the U.S. Embassy was orchestrated by the Pakistani government, which was angry that the United States cut off financial aid to the country in April 1979. Not only did the Pakistani government facilitate the busing of large numbers of protesters to the U.S. Embassy, its security forces also stood aside and refused to protect the embassy from the onslaught of the angry mob. The embassy assault was Pakistan’s not-so-subtle way of sending a message to the U.S. government.
In February 2006 during the unrest generated by the Mohammed cartoon fiasco, mobs in Islamabad, Peshawar, Karachi and Lahore attacked a wide range of Western business targets. The worst of this violence occurred in Lahore, where a rampaging mob burned down four buildings housing the four-star Ambassador Hotel, two banks, a KFC restaurant franchise and the regional office of Telenor, a Norwegian cell phone company.
Based on this history, the current tension between the United States and Pakistan, public sentiment in Pakistan regarding U.S. security contractors and the possibility of groups like JuD and JeI attempting to take advantage of the situation, there is a very real possibility that Davis’ release could spark mob violence in Pakistan (and specifically Lahore). Even if the Pakistani government does try to defuse the situation, there are other parties who will attempt to stir up violence.
What is going to happen in Egypt now that Mubarak is out of power? That is a question on everyone’s lips. The simple fact is that most people in the intelligence business around the world were caught as surprised by the protests, and their peaceful and fast results, as all of the rest of us and the idea of who or what will follow the current regime has not yet been considered in detail. Fortunately there are a few experts who did see this coming and who have some ideas about the answers to these questions.
Even though the senior military is now at the top of the power structure following Mubarak it is apparent that they almost certainly have no clear idea of what happens next. It will be days or weeks before anyone knows how well the transition will function, who goes and who stays, and how stable the result really is.
That said, there are some broad things than can be said about the Egyptian military. First, there is no one military, and a careful distinction needs to be made between the actual military with around 470,000 personnel under the Ministry of Defense and the “others”. Others in uniform include the 325,000 personnel in the Central Security Services and 60,000 in National Guard (under the Ministry of the Interior). These latter forces are the primary source of the oppression and of the growing authoritarianism and abuses that Egyptians are now protesting.
While the Egyptian military may well be the ultimate power brokers in a time of major political upheaval, they also are a military force and not the de facto government. They do not dominate the economy or civil government, and most have been subject to surveillance by Egypt’s oppressive intelligence services. These services themselves present real question about Egypt’s future power structure.
The Egyptian military is not an isolated elite. They are a citizen army. Most actual soldiers are conscript and many junior officers are graduates who serve short tours or who join the military because it is the only job available. Mid level officers are usually career professional that are not part of the political side of the military. They have won considerable public respect and support over the years, but they also have lost status as a new class of businessmen and profiteers has acquired great wealth and the disparities in income have grown. Most can now buy less by way of housing, education for the children, and the key elements of middle class living than in the past.
Some do have every reason to be loyal to the status quo. There are significant numbers of retired senor military officers in Mubarak’s inner circle who have been given sinecures and senior posts in the civil government and state industries, and who will want to continue to benefit from the regime. But the bulk of even senior the officers who leave don’t enjoy these privileges. Most senior officers are in career paths that do not give them special access to those who were in Mubarak’s close circle. Those who do become part of Mubarak “loyalists” have acquired money and status, but the further even senior officers are outside the circle, the more they rely on their military pay. and the more reason they have to be loyal to the nation and not the leader.
These distinctions also help explain why most of military retain so much popular respect. It is also important to understand that democracy is less important to most Egyptians than material benefits, jobs, decent education, effective government services, ending corruption and favoritism, and emphasizing the concept of justice in ways that provide security and honest police and courts. People aren’t looking for a vote as much as they want to stop the economic, political and social injustice — a search compounded by the fact Islam place so much emphasis on justice in every aspect of life and governance. The loudest and most Western voices in the square do not always speak for the Egyptian people, and practical compromise with around programs that provide justice and benefits may be easier for both the military and the people than some realize.
At the same time, the military’s top priority is to preserve the nation and maintain order and limit chaos or upheaval. They are far less likely to use torture or violence than the forces under Ministry of Interior as the entire command ethic of the professional military is the nation, not the leader, and military discipline puts real restraints on their actions. However, there also are real limits to their tolerance. They will not accept a breakdown of the government or economy. They will not accept paralysis or demonstrations that become violent, although they will not support a new wave of repression. Whomever is perceived as the most radically violent will tend to lose.
The good news is that Egyptians as a whole tend to be pragmatic and not violent. (And they have the best political jokes around.) There are, however, serious legal barriers that need to be addressed, that will make life difficult for both the military and the people unless pragmatism takes priority over formal legal constraints.
There also are senior military and ex-military in government and around Mubarak that occupy key posts and have a vested interest in blocking reform. These include top military and ex-military: Lieutenant-General Omar Suleiman, the former head of the military intelligence service and now Vice-President; Ahmed Shafik, a former air force commander and now Prime Minister , and Field Marshal Mohammed Hussein Tantawi, the Defense Minister, the new deputy premier. They were all part of the Mubarak cadre. None are symbols of progress and change and all also have little real political experience, no knowledge of reform, and little experience in the kind of effective civil governance and economic reform Egypt will now need.
Moreover, both the military and all of Egypt’s civil leaders will suffer from the legacy of a political system where any opposition has been suppressed and sidelined for some 30 years. No political parties have the level of experience in cooperation and governance to rapidly participate in an election or show they can govern. The largest opposition party, the Muslim Brotherhood, is led a by a gerontocracy and deeply divided between traditionalist and reformers, with extremists at the margins. The other parties are untried, although they have some bright intellectuals, and proven businessmen.
This is why Obama administration is right in trying to find a transition that will provide the time needed to make the changes that will allow an effective political process to emerge, suspend the emergency law and create a structure where people can run and campaign. It is seeking to persuade the regime to accept a meaningful reform plan, in part because there is no way the regime can go back to the old system and a rigged September election could create a far worse crisis and a far higher prospect of lasting instability.
Moreover, regime change is only part of the story — for the military and the Egyptian people: No matter who emerges as the post-Mubarak leader, the economic and demographic pressures that have driven this uprising are going to remain for at least several years. This uprising takes place in the cauldron or world economic collapse. As in a disturbingly growing number of places throughout the world, in Egypt there are food spikes, fuel spikes, recession, a huge young population, weak job market, growing disparity of income. The UN has declared major food shortages throughout the world, and the future is uncertain — particularly given the drought in China. In Egypt, many live pretty much on subsistence. If it were not for food aid and subsidies they wouldn’t survive at all. For the rest, there are few new jobs here that offer the growing jobless population any employment, much less jobs with status.
This may well mean that whatever new government comes to power has less than a 50 percent chance of surviving for two years. Patience is an Egyptian virtue, but the Egyptian people (and the military) are unlikely to tolerate failed politics, failed governance, and token progress. This, in turn, poses a long-term challenge for the US that goes far beyond who in the military has power in the first phase of change following Mubarak’s departure. Egypt controls a critical global trade route in the Suez Canal. The security of the Canal and its pipeline have a major impact on energy prices and the world economy. Egypt is key to the Arab-Israeli peace and stability in the region, US military overflights and staging, and the struggle against extremism. In short, Egypt is a vital US national security interest — in fact, a far more vital interest than Afghanistan or Pakistan.
On February 5th, the sloop of war, U.S.S. Brooklyn, arrived at Pensacola, Florida, with troops, munitions, and provisions on board. Waiting for her were U.S. Navy warships—Sabine, Macedonian, Wyandotte, and St. Louis—called to the Gulf of Mexico from distant stations. Between the time the Brooklyn went to sea and its arrival at Pensacola, President Buchanan had rejected South Carolina Attorney General Hayne’s effort to negotiate the purchase of Fort Sumter from the government, and he had received ex-President John Tyler of Virginia, who arrived in late January with a request from the State of Virginia that Buchanan maintain the status quo, pending Virginia’s effort to convene a “Peace Convention” in Washington, to be attended by delegates from all the States; a last ditch effort to achieve a political resolution of the crisis caused by secession.
In consequence of his communications with Tyler, President Buchanan agreed to a truce at Pensacola which his secretaries of war and navy jointed communicated to Captain Vodges, commander of the troops on board the Brooklyn.
Sir: In consequence of assurances received, that Fort Pickens will not be attacked, you are instructed not to land the company on board the Brooklyn, unless you see preparations being made for an attack. The provisions necessary for the supply of the fort you will land.
J. Holt, Secretary of War
Isaac Toucey, Secretary of the Navy
About the same time as this, South Carolina Attorney General Hayne left Washington, his effort to negotiate the purchase of Fort Sumter having been rejected by Buchanan. During Hayne’s stay in Washington, a truce existed at Fort Sumter, through an agreement made between Major Anderson and Governor Pickens that the State would allow provisions to be delivered to the fort from Charleston, and in exchange Anderson would not act offensively, pending the result of Haynes’s effort at Washington.
At this point, President Buchanan held several conferences with General Scott, other officers, and a civilian named G.V. Fox, who offered a plan of entering Charleston Harbor during the night with troops in small boats. Buchanan determined to prepare an expedition, under the command of a naval officer, composed of “a few small steamers” which “might enter the harbor at night and anchor, if possible, under the guns of Fort Sumter.”
While these conferences were being held, the engineering officer at Fort Sumter, Lt. J.G. Foster, sent almost daily reports to the War Department describing the frenetic activity the Confederates were engaged in, building artillery batteries.
The expedition did not sail. General Scott had made it clear to Buchanan that it was impossible to expect success in reinforcing Sumter, using such a small and defenseless force as Fox had suggested. In his opinion, nothing less than a full fleet of gun ships, capable of suppressing artillery fire from the Confederate batteries encircling the fort, along with a body of troops numbering 20,000, to land on the beaches, was required. This force Buchanan plainly did not have. Influencing Buchanan’s decision, too, was the fact that the State of Virginia had sent an emissary to Governor Pickens, who reported that South Carolina would respect Virginia’s plea that no hostile act be done at Charleston while the Peace Convention was underway at Washington. President Buchanan’s decision was conveyed to Major Anderson by Secretary of War Holt.
WAR DEPARTMENT, February 23, 1861
Major Anderson:
I state distinctly that you hold Fort Sumter as you held Fort Moultrie, under the verbal instructions communicated by Major Buell, subsequently modified by instructions dated the 21st of December.
In my letter to you of January 10th, I said: `You will continue to act strictly on the defensive and to avoid a collision with the hostile forces by which you are surrounded.’
The policy thus indicated must still govern your conduct. The President is not disposed at the present moment to change the instructions. . . This will be but a redemption of the implied pledge contained in my letter on behalf of the President to Attorney General Hayne, in which, speaking of Sumter, it is said: `The people of South Carolina have nothing to fear from Sumter’s guns, unless, in the absence of all provocation, they should assault it and seek its destruction.’
The labors of the Peace Convention have not yet been closed, and the presence of that body here adds another to the powerful motives already existing for the adoption of every measure for avoiding a collision.”
J. Holt, Secretary of War
And again, on February 28, 1861:
Major Anderson:
The Secretary of War directs me to say that the Peace Convention today agreed upon a basis of a settlement of our political difficulties, which was reported to Congress. The Secretary entertains the hope that nothing will occur now of a hostile character.
S. Cooper, Adjutant General
Lincoln Travels by Train Roundabout to Washington
During the first three weeks of February, President-elect Abraham Lincoln made his journey from Springfield to Washington. He took his time coming; stopping at Indianapolis, Cincinnati and Columbus, Pittsburg, New York, and Philadelphia. In the course of his zigzag trip he met in private conference with the Republican governors at the helm of the State governments in Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Connecticut, New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania, gathering their support for what he told them would be coming next. In his public speeches, he made conflicting statements: though he intended to hold the forts of the Union he saw no need for war; indeed, he said, “there is no occasion for alarm as nobody’s been hurt.” From these utterances, the newspapers reported that Lincoln considered the country to be in no danger, that there would be no occasion to use force.
Reaching Philadelphia, he told the audience surrounding him at Independence Hall that he could see no need for war unless. . . “I may say in advance that there will be no bloodshed unless it is forced upon the government.” How “forced?” “The government will not use force, unless force is used against it?” Moving then to Harrisburg, Lincoln met with Governor Curtin, and to the public said a few words: “With my consent, or without my great displeasure, this country shall never witness the shedding of one drop of blood by fraternal strife.” Then back to Philadelphia he went and in the night changed trains and reached Washington at dawn.
When he arrived in Washington, on February 23rd, he took rooms at the Willard Hotel—the same location where the Peace Convention was being held—and entertained the crowds of people who came to see him, touch him, and get a job from him. He was sized up by all concerned as easygoing, convivial and a bit droll.
But when he encountered one of the New York money kings in the halls of the Willard, he projected a different impression to the public altogether. Dodge, the capitalist, came to Washington with an entourage of bankers and wall streeters.
“Now,” said Dodge, “it is for you, sir, to say whether the whole nation will be plunged into bankruptcy, whether the grass shall grow in Wall Street.”
“Then, I say it shall not,” Lincoln is reported to have retorted. “If it depends upon me, the grass will grow only in the fields and meadows.”
“Then you will not go to war with the South on account of slavery?”
All merriment gone suddenly from his face, Lincoln locked eyes with Dodge and said: “I do not understand your meaning, Mr. Dodge. I will preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution until it is enforced and obeyed in every one of the United States, let the grass grow where it may.”
For a week, waiting for Inauguration Day, Lincoln went about the business of politicking; he called upon President Buchanan at the White House, shook hands with the members of Buchanan’s Cabinet, visited with Stephen Douglas, interviewed General Scott, and met with the Republicans in the Senate and House.
