Election Day in Iraq

YAY! We have succeeded in bringing American-style democracy to Iraq: low voter turnout.

Photo credit: Michael Kamber for The New York Times

Bring the troops home.

Never Mind Vermont; What About Iraq?

My enjoyment at seeing the front page news regarding gay marriage in Vermont was immediately shattered by this article concerning abuses against gay men and lesbians in Iraq.

In the past two months, the bodies of as many as 25 boys and men suspected of being gay have turned up in the huge Shiite enclave of Sadr City, the police and friends of the dead say. Most have been shot, some multiple times. Several have been found with the word “pervert” in Arabic on notes attached to their bodies, the police said.

In reality, there are many in this country who would do, and have done, the same. That level of hatred is simultaneously sickening and horrifying.

“Homosexuality is against the law,” said Lt. Muthana Shaad, at a police station in the Karada district, a neighborhood that has become popular with gay men. “And it’s disgusting.”

More disgusting than wholesale slaughter based on pure hate?

In 2005, the country’s most influential Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, issued a religious decree that said gay men and lesbians should be “punished, in fact, killed.” He added, “The people should be killed in the worst, most severe way of killing.” The language has since been removed from his Web site.

[...]

...clerics associated with Moktada al-Sadr, an anti-American cleric with significant influence in Sadr City, have devoted a portion of Friday Prayer services to inveighing against homosexuality.

“The community should be purified from such delinquent behavior like stealing, lying and the effeminacy phenomenon among men,” Sheik Jassem al-Mutairi said during his sermon last Friday. Homosexuality, he said, was “far from manhood and honesty.”

Ah... so their issue with homosexuals boils down to a hatred of anything feminine.

Nice. Wow, do we have a long way to go or what?

To Surge and Protect

After a grueling day at work, I can hardly hold down my white wine while watching McCain talking about the pre-surge surge that worked before the so-called "surge" worked.

Surge rhymes with purge.

Remember that.

Poll: Most Americans Can't Find Their Own Assholes

And many of those don't even vote. But, I don’t get this. Can someone explain it to me? Explain how "voters think McCain is better suited to handle Iraq" than Obama?

The public's stance on the war is as equivocal as McCain's is not: A strong majority of Americans oppose it and believe it was wrong in the first place, but more find McCain better suited to handle Iraq than his Democratic presidential rival, Barack Obama.

"He's more experienced militarily," said Ann Burkes, a registered Democrat and retired third-grade teacher from Broken Arrow, Okla. "And I don't know if I agree with stay-the-course (policy), but I think the good probably outweighs the bad with him, experience-wise."

Gee, do we want out or not? Can we make up our fucking minds?

Here's the deal: 55% of independents don't think McCain is better. And another 12% think both candidates could deal with Iraq effectively. So that's 67% who would not agree with the statement that McCain is clearly better able to handle Iraq.

Among Democrats, it's 72% who don't think McCain is better, and a total of 83% who would disagree with the statement that McCain is clearly better able to handle Iraq.

And does anybody really give a whirling rat's ass what Republicans think? Let's go there anyway. 16% don't believe McCain is better. And a total of 24% of Republicans -- nearly 1 in 4 -- would apparently, based on my interpretation of this poll, disagree that McCain alone is the best of the two in handling Iraq.

So, where in the name of hell did they come up with the title of the article linked at the beginning of this post?

Voters say McCain better suited to handle Iraq than Obama

It seems to me, that should read, "Some voters...." and yes, we already know that some voters are eternally stupid, blind in their allegiance, and honestly, probably just not paying close attention. And this bit just really has me in a tizzy:

For McCain, there is a major complication. Not all those voters who perceive him as stronger on Iraq say they will vote for him for president.

McCain has a bigger complication. Even if all those voters DID vote for him for president, it shouldn't matter. He should still lose. McCain has two major complications: McCain, and the Republican Party.

Screw them both. And screw stupid polls. Screw Yahoo and screw the AP.

Did I leave anyone out to screw who deserves it?

4,000 Dots in 5 Years

Each dot represents the lost life of a soldier in Iraq. Each dot represents a name, a face, a family filled with sadness, a lost future, a sacrifice, and for what?

Each dot also represents at least 8 wounded in action, and that number is probably very low. It could easily be 16 or more. Many of those lives are forever changed as they learn to cope with lost senses we all take for granted -- the lost of vision, hearing, one or more limbs, or a plethora of mental health issues.

Each dot represents at least 300 Iraqis who have died as a result of the US invasion. Again, 300 names, faces and families destroyed for each dot.

Lastly, each dot represents $126 million dollars based on the most conservative Pentagon figures of the war's cost. If you believe as I do that the true cost of the war is already at $1 trillion if not on the verge of $2 trillion, then each dot represents about $250 million to $500 million -- that's half a billion dollars per dot for those of you more accustomed to dealing with three and four-digit sums of money on a routine basis.

……………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………….


So? At least somebody is benefitting.

Have a nice Easter weekend, Mr. Cheney. And may you rot in Hell.

What's Missing On This Blog?

My ranting contribution to the March 19 Iraq War Blogswarm?

I'm not sure I have it in me. I've been angry about this war for 5 years already. I've blogged about my anger for about 22 months off and on. The American people have spoken -- once by electing that fucking asshole in the White House to a second term when he never deserved a first, and once by giving the Democrats a narrow control over Congress which by my estimation has accomplished not one damn thing. Sure, the people have been polled and they overwhelmingly are against the war but who gives a shit about poll numbers? Not the president. And not Dick.

And in just over 7 months we'll be going to the polls again to select the leader of our country for the next four years in what should be a landslide blowout against the Republicans, but may in fact be another tight race if current polls can be trusted.

Americans seem more concerned about the economy right now than they are about Iraq. I'm not saying that's wrong. We should be more concerned about the economy because Iraq should never have been an issue in the first place because the war never should have happened. And I've yet to hear very many Americans asking themselves how the cost of this war has impacted our economy, directly or indirectly.

Meanwhile, Bush just keeps pounding the same message to the same favorable audiences over and over, and nothing changes. No accountability, no impeachment, nothing.

“Five years into this battle, there is an understandable debate over whether the war was worth fighting, whether the fight is worth winning, and whether we can win it,” he said. “The answers are clear to me. Removing Saddam Hussein from power was the right decision, and this is a fight that America can and must win.”

This protest against the war and the appropriate level of anger should not be confined to the "liberal" bloggers. Honestly, I feel thoroughly pissed off that after five long fucking years of this insane bullshit, we're still the ones demanding an end to it. Five years into this with no end in sight, 4,000 soldiers dead, many tens of thousands more wounded, hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis dead or wounded with millions of lives disrupted and displaced, countless lies of the Bush administration, trillions of dollars squandered or slated to be, there should be tens of millions of Americans out in the streets in an uproar.

Frankly, I find myself in "shock and awe" at American apathy. We apparently cannot even comprehend the cost although we will without a doubt feel it, and soon.

Five years in, the Pentagon tags the cost of the Iraq war at roughly $600 billion and counting. Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning economist and critic of the war, pegs the long-term cost at more than $4 trillion.

[...]

Congressional Democrats fiercely criticize the White House over war expenditures. But it is virtually certain that the Democrats will provide tens of billions more in a military spending bill next month. Some Democrats are even arguing against attaching strings, like a deadline for withdrawal, saying the tactic will fail as it has in the past.

Emphasis on "and counting." These spineless fucks are paid to represent us. When will we hold them accountable?

Time is ticking and every ten seconds of this insanity costs us the average income of an American for a year, give or take a few seconds. With that in mind, I'm not sure just what it takes to get the average American angry enough in large enough numbers to bring about some change.

Until then, I have a prayer.

Dear God, please damn this man for eternity.

That's not asking for much under the circumstances.

The War In Iraq Adds Up

Unless my math is wrong, in the time it will take you to read this sentence, the war in Iraq will have cost us $32,000. Or a bit under $1.5 million in the time it took me to prepare this post.

Trillions Squandered

It's primary day in Texas and I have an important decision to make: stick with the 3rd candidate I have supported during the primary season or switch to my 4th. Or switch back to my 2nd choice since he is on the ballot but out of the race.

Last week txrad told me he was leaning to Obama which I interpreted as a general direction of Texas in general. He and I have had many political conversations and for him to indicate an interest in throwing his support to Obama made me wonder just how many other Texans were contemplating the same in what is perceived to be a tight race.

Polls are open and I have not reached a decision. Call me the ultimate undecided voter. It's unlikely my vote choice will be swayed by any yard signs or billboards, nor will I be influenced by any radio or TV ads, positive or negative.

What did stir up a flurry of frustration for me with Hillary was Bob Herbert's op-ed piece in today's NY Times concerning the true cost of the war in Iraq. It's nothing I didn't already know, but it is something not widely reported in the MSM.

The war in Iraq will ultimately cost U.S. taxpayers not hundreds of billions of dollars, but an astonishing $2 trillion, and perhaps more. There has been very little in the way of public conversation, even in the presidential campaigns, about the consequences of these costs, which are like a cancer inside the American economy.

On Thursday, the Joint Economic Committee, chaired by Senator Chuck Schumer, conducted a public examination of the costs of the war. The witnesses included the Nobel Prize-winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz (who believes the overall costs of the war — not just the cost to taxpayers — will reach $3 trillion), and Robert Hormats, vice chairman of Goldman Sachs International.

I constantly fantasize about squandered money under the Bush administration and the plethora of ways the money could have been better spent to improve the lives of Americans. And when it comes to the cost of this war, the amount of money is staggering.

Both men talked about large opportunities lost because of the money poured into the war. “For a fraction of the cost of this war,” said Mr. Stiglitz, “we could have put Social Security on a sound footing for the next half-century or more.”

Mr. Hormats mentioned Social Security and Medicare, saying that both could have been put “on a more sustainable basis.” And he cited the committee’s own calculations from last fall that showed that the money spent on the war each day is enough to enroll an additional 58,000 children in Head Start for a year, or make a year of college affordable for 160,000 low-income students through Pell Grants, or pay the annual salaries of nearly 11,000 additional border patrol agents or 14,000 more police officers.

My disappointment in Hillary Clinton for voting to authorize this war has resurfaced with a vengeance. It would be different if I personally had held similar beliefs as her at the time she supported authorization. I could well argue that I had also been hoodwinked and we both made mistakes and we learn from them. But I was against the war from the beginning -- even before the beginning. I participated in a street march here in Austin in which thousands of protesters showed up to take a stand against what was then merely the potential for a war.

I'm not the type of person to be easily motivated to inconvenience myself unless I feel an injustice of inconceivable proportions is about to be unleashed. But txrad and I along with thousands of other did believe in our hearts this war was dead wrong. And we were right. And Hillary was wrong.

Now I have to decide whether to forgive someone for making such an obvious mistake and reward her with my vote, even as I am imperfect in my own personal affairs and decisions, and currently paying the price for my obvious mistakes.

I have a few more hours to mull it over. Meanwhile, this little widget that I've had on my blog sidebar almost since the beginning will probably be removed soon. It seems pretty meaningless at this point.

It Was An Improvement, Before It Wasn't One

This is not the least bit surprising, really. As it turns out, the Iraqi government has not been increasing spending for reconstruction as reported earlier.

Highly promising figures that the administration cited to demonstrate economic progress in Iraq last fall, when Congress was considering whether to continue financing the war, cannot be substantiated by official Iraqi budget records, the Government Accountability Office reported Tuesday.

[...]

By July 2007, the administration said, Iraq had spent some 24 percent of $10 billion set aside for reconstruction that year.

Oops. Not so fast. Make that 4.4 percent.

But in its report on Tuesday, the accountability office said official Iraqi Finance Ministry records showed that Iraq had spent only 4.4 percent of the reconstruction budget by August 2007. It also said that the rate of spending had substantially slowed from the previous year.

[...]

The reason for the difference, said Joseph A. Christoff, the G.A.O.’s director of international affairs and trade, was that few official Iraqi figures for 2007 were available when General Petraeus and Mr. Crocker went to Congress.

So, in the absence of actual figures, we just make shit up? Who would imagine such a thing.

So the administration, with the help of the Finance Ministry in Baghdad, appears to have relied on a combination of indicators, including real expenditures, ministries’ suggestions of projects they intended to carry out, and contracts that were still under negotiation, Mr. Christoff said. But actual spending does not seem to have lived up to those estimates for spending on reconstruction, a budget item sometimes called capital or investment expenditures, he added.

“So it looked like an improvement, but it wasn’t an improvement,” he said.

Actually, it never looked like an improvement. It looked like a potential for improvement assuming a best case scenario. Big difference.

A spokeswoman for the United States Embassy in Baghdad said Tuesday that she could not comment. The White House press office did not respond to a request for comment.

Of course not.

It's About Iraq The Economy Iraq AND The Economy

Pity the presidential candidates who must constantly multi-task by seizing the political issue du jour. While Condi is busy praising progress in Iraq, the Iraqi defense minister is indicating that country will be unable to defend its borders without (our) help until 2018 -- at least.

Those comments from the minister, Abdul Qadir, were among the most specific public projections of a timeline for the American commitment in Iraq by officials in either Washington or Baghdad. And they suggested a longer commitment than either government had previously indicated.

[...]

Mr. Qadir’s comments are likely to become a factor in political debate over the war. All of the Democratic presidential candidates have promised a swift American withdrawal, while the leading Republican candidates have generally supported President Bush’s plan. Now that rough dates have been attached to his formula, they will certainly come under scrutiny from both sides.

I've been concerned that focus on Iraq as a political issue had been dwindling too much in recent weeks, and while the economy is certainly a major issue -- and should be -- we can't take pressure off the candidates to declare their positions on our withdrawal from that quagmire.

If we are already having economic issues worthy of being the focus of attention right now in 2008, imagine the impact another 10-12 years of major US military occupation of Iraq will have on our economy, sucking away hundreds of billions more.

Iraqi Gays Facing Tougher Life

Chalk up one more group in Iraq who are who are facing tough times since the American-led invasion: gays and lesbians.

And while that probably isn't a big surprise, it certainly speaks volumes about our "progress" in building a safe, Democratic Iraq where freedom and equality rule.

Mohammed, 37, has been openly gay for much of his adult life. For him, this has meant growing his hair long and taking estrogen. In the past, he said, that held little danger. As is true throughout the Middle East, men have always been publicly affectionate here.

But, at least until recently, Mohammed and many of his gay friends went one step further, slipping into lovers’ houses late at night. And, until the American invasion, they said, Iraqi society had quietly accepted them.

But being openly gay is not an option in the new Iraq, where the rise of religious extremism has left Mohammed and his gay friends feeling especially vilified.

[...]

In 2005, Iraq’s most revered Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, issued a fatwa, or religious decree, calling for gay men and lesbians to be killed in the “worst, most severe way.”

He lifted it a year later, but neither that nor the recent ebb in violence has made Mohammed or his friends feel safe. They yearn to leave Iraq, but do not have the money or visas. They agreed to be interviewed on the condition that their last names not be used.

These extremists are an unpleasant lot, for sure.

His hand drifted to his newly shorn hair. He had lopped it off days earlier. There had been reports of extremists stopping long-haired men, shearing their hair and forcing them to eat it.

At least 400 people have been killed in Iraq since 2003 for being gay, according to an Iraqi gay rights group.

And some in the American military are not really helping matters with their adolescent condescending attitudes toward gays.

The American invasion was expected to usher in better times.

“We thought that with the presence of Americans, life would become paradise, that Iraq would be Westernized,” Mohammed said. “But unfortunately the way things were before was so much better than where we are now.”

One night shortly after Saddam Hussein fell, American soldiers burst into the apartment that Mohammed shared with his two brothers. They were looking for insurgents, but took one look at Mohammed, with his long hair and shapely body wrapped in a robe, and teased him, he said.

“What are you, a lady man?” he remembered them barking. “A boy? Or a girl?” They turned to one of Mohammed’s brothers, “Who is this?” they asked, “Your girlfriend?”

Being gay in Iraq now keeps them constantly on the move seeking safety. Not surprisingly, many of them want out of Iraq.

One of Mohammed’s friends, a 25-year-old law student named Rafi, said he was especially desperate to get out of Iraq. It is a sentiment shared by millions of Iraqis, but Rafi believes his future here is especially bleak. The influence from Iran is growing, he said. And in Iran, homosexuality is often punishable by death.

“I want to get out, but not just out of Iraq, out of the Middle East,” Rafi said, “to a country that has respect for human rights. And for us.”

Good luck. And if you are casting an eye on the United States, I'd wait until January 2009 -- at least.


Crossposted at Big Brass Blog

A "Billion" Has Lost a Whole Lotta Meaning

I'm old enough to remember when a billion dollars was a shitload of money. It was the stuff of corporate mergers and involved very impressive single digits.

Now we have people worth billions and a war costing trillions. At least $2 trillion before all is said and done.

A new "partisan" report by Democrats on Congress' Joint Economic Committee (pass that joint around) has estimated the true cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at $1.6 trillion.

The report, released Tuesday, attempted to put a price tag on the two conflicts, including "hidden" costs such as interest payments on the money borrowed to pay for the wars, lost investment, the expense of long-term health care for injured veterans and the cost of oil market disruptions.

And this is where the Republicans are getting their panties all knotted up in their ass cracks.

I'm not sure why, because I calculate my own costs of goods and services with the inclusion of interest payments and other side costs, including the cost of driving to purchase said goods.

Example: When I go out for my favorite $19 Indian meal, I accept the fact that the $19 meal is actually costing me $26 when I factor in the cost of fuel to drive 22 miles each way to get there. And that doesn't include the wear & tear on the car.

Whatever.

For the Iraq war only, total economic costs were estimated at $1.3 trillion for the period from 2002 to 2008. That would cost a family of four $16,500, the report said.

I don't know about the rest of you reading this blog, but I could find a better use for $16,500, or in my family of two, $8,250 could be better spent.

The White House countered that the report was politically motivated.

"This report was put out by Democrats on Capitol Hill. This committee is known for being partisan and political. They did not consult or cooperate with the Republicans on the committee. And so I think it is an attempt to muddy the waters on what has been some positive developments being reported out of Iraq," said White House press secretary Dana Perino. "I haven't seen the report, but it's obvious the motivations behind it."

But of course. It needs to be motivated by somebody for some reason because it's FUCKING INSANE!

White House Budget Director Jim Nussle accused Democrats of "trying to distort reality for political gain."

Excuse the living fuck out of me. Since when is including interest payments on borrowed money and including the cost of long-term health care for injured veterans a distortion?


This rant proudly crossposted at Big Brass Blog.

The Financial Benefits of War

We all know there's money to be made in times of war, but this is sick.

On the fourth Sunday in July, John Lee Cockerham was here in his hometown for the baptism of his twin sons.

[...]

At his sons’ baptism, he told fellow worshipers that he hoped to instill in his children the values he had wrested from hardship.

Less than 24 hours later Major Cockerham was behind bars, accused of orchestrating the largest single bribery scheme against the military since the start of the Iraq war. According to the authorities, the 41-year-old officer, with his wife and a sister, used an elaborate network of offshore bank accounts and safe deposit boxes to hide nearly $10 million in bribes from companies seeking military contracts.

The accusations against Major Cockerham are tied to a crisis of corruption inside the behemoth bureaucracy that sustains America’s troops. Pentagon officials are investigating some $6 billion in military contracts, most covering supplies as varied as bottled water, tents and latrines for troops in Kuwait, Iraq and Afghanistan.

The inquiries have resulted in charges against at least 29 civilians and soldiers, more than 75 other criminal investigations and the suicides of at least two officers. They have prompted the Pentagon, the largest purchasing agency in the world, to overhaul its war-zone procurement system.

It's one thing to be corrupt and take bribes. But to do so in the midst of a war in which soldiers and scores of innocent civilians are killed on a daily basis -- basically sacrificing their lives for nothing -- this really has to be the lowest form of criminality.

If Cockerham is indeed guilty, we can only hope he instills none of his values in his children.

What a sad waste.

One Nation Under Madness

I'm not sure what happened on 9/11/01 but it was far more than an attack from terrorists. As we approach the 6th anniversary of this horrific nightmare, I've watched America further deteriorate into something I barely recognize.

We seem to have lost any ability to get along with others, celebrate diversity, or even to tolerate diversity. We seem to crave an enemy, a threat, in order to preserve our perception of the American way of life.

There is a evil undercurrent fast at work driving wedges between groups and pitting neighbor against neighbor, and it's ugly. This vile force has large numbers of Americans wrongly believing that our culture faces extinction, that God has somehow been expelled from our nation by liberals (oh, if only we had that kind of power), that the English language is in danger, and of course, that gays, lesbians, and especially the transgendered threaten the very foundation of our society.

What the fuck is wrong with us?

The Republicans debated in Des Moines this weekend. You know something good is coming out of that.

Say It, Even If It Ain't So
Because we're so dumb we'll probably believe it if we hear it repeated enough.

As in past encounters, the Republicans largely agreed on the need to continue the Iraq war, saying that leaving the country too quickly would disrupt the fight against terrorism.

Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), whose front-runner status has slipped away in a wave of fundraising and staff woes, stuck to his guns on the war, saying there will be catastrophic consequences if America abandons Iraq.

"We are winning. We must win. And we will not set a date for surrender, as the Democrats want us to do," McCain said.

Define "winning."

And while we're on this road, define incompetence.
How the hell can we win a war if we can't even keep track of our own weapons?

"They really have no idea where they are," said Rachel Stohl, a senior analyst at the Center for Defense Information who has studied small-arms trade and received Pentagon briefings on the issue. "It likely means that the United States is unintentionally providing weapons to bad actors."

Meanwhile, have a look at success:

Jihad Wali, 35, victim of a roadside bomb that killed nine civilians and wounded eight.

How many hundreds of thousands of times has this scene played out in Iraq?

Bush is a great multitasker. While wreaking havoc overseas, he can simultaneously do it at home.

"We must remember that our work is not done," Bush said upon signing the [eavesdropping] bill...

Most Americans will pay little or no attention to this because we're all a little too concerned about another dangerous threat: illegal immigrants seeking hard work and a better life for them and their families. God knows, I sure can't sleep at night with so many brown-skinned people coming here to work, sleep, pay rent, eat strange food and speak some inferior language which I can't understand.

Spurred by rising resentment in the country over illegal immigration and by the collapse of a broad immigration bill in the Senate in June, state legislators nationwide adopted measures to curb employment of unauthorized immigrants and to make it more difficult for them to obtain state identification documents like driver’s licenses.

[...]

State lawmakers have introduced about two and half times more immigration bills this year than in 2006, and the number that have become law is more than double the 84 bills enacted last year, according to the conference, a nonpartisan organization that includes all the state legislatures.

Big Brother is on the march in Louisiana:

The toughest law was adopted in Louisiana, which now requires applicants’ names to be checked against a federal immigration database as well as the Department of Homeland Security’s terrorism watch list.

And it's not just the dirty Mexicans getting our white wrath.
Indian immigrants are getting the cracking whip.

ISELIN, N.J., Aug. 3 — With the workweek behind him, Deepu Dass focused on a pesky bald spot in his front lawn here. As he sprayed the patch with water, urging the grass toward the perfection achieved by several neighbors, he said confidently: “I planted seeds.”

I'm happy I don't live in a neighborhood where the neighbors complain about something like a patch of imperfect grass.

There have been up to six men sharing the house, whose owners include Suresh Kumar, president of NexAge Technologies USA, a nearby software company where the tenants work. But the unusual arrangement — and the unsightly lawn — caught the attention of local housing inspectors, and in May Woodbridge Township cited Mr. Kumar for several violations, including an unauthorized boarding house and an illegal multifamily dwelling. He has until Aug. 16 to resolve the situation, which may mean kicking his workers out.

Hey, I'm all for cleaning up hazardous living conditions such as the 10 people living in a basement, and the unlicensed day care center which was set up in another house, but to clamp down on otherwise hard-working middle-class people because their culture encourages extended families living together, or because someone wants to help out co-workers by allowing five others to live with him in his home, is unnecessarily aggressive.

Sharmila Rudrappa, a sociology professor at the University of Texas at Austin and the author of “Ethnic Routes to Becoming American: Indian Immigrants and the Cultures of Citizenship,” said it was common for Indian families to live in joint households both in their homeland and in the United States.

“My father’s brother is married to my mother’s sister,” she said. “The two families had five kids between them. We lived together for a few years, and it was kind of a wonderful way to grow up.”

The joint family arrangements have become harder to maintain in crowded Indian cities, but in American homes the practice is alive and well.

“It’s a way to ease immigration,” Professor Rudrappa said. “You help family out. Family members coming from India might not know how to drive, and grocery stores can be unnerving.”

American attitudes can be unnerving as well. I like this man's rationale:

Rakesh Patel, 34, a technology worker at a New York investment bank, said he had his three-bedroom, two-story house built here seven years ago “for family and friends.” He and his wife, two children and his parents moved from a cramped apartment in Edison. Mr. Patel’s cousin’s sister has joined the household, and Mr. Patel’s sister and three family members may soon come to stay for a while. Other relatives often visit for months at a time.

“Why not?” asked Mr. Patel, noting that he also stayed with his uncle when he first came to the United States from India in 1996. “I pay $9,000 a year in taxes.”

It's Monday. Welcome to another day in the "greatest nation on earth."


Crossposted at B3

Unhappy Memorial Day

Memorial Day is a legal holiday observed annually on the last Monday in May in the United States, in honor of the nation’s armed services personnel killed in wartime.



3,455

A lot of blood has been shed for no reason. Impeachment is overdue.

Bush Seeks More Troops in Iraq -- No, I Mean MORE Troops

Of course, he'd bring this up while in Uruguay. There's got to be a few dozen in Congress who would love to slap the shit out of him. Fortunately for him, he's safely out of their reach for a few days.

90 100+ More Casualties in Iraq

At some point I should quit posting about this and just put a daily casualty figure in the sidebar. There's only so much a person can say or write about the situation. I'm tired of it.

A bomb followed by a mortar attack struck a market in a predominantly Shiite town north of Baghdad on Monday, killing at least 12 people and wounding nearly 30, police said. The bomb exploded at 5 p.m. near the main market in Khalis, 50 miles north of Baghdad, and a mortar shell struck the same area about five minutes later, according to the information bureau for the volatile Diyala province. It said 12 civilians were killed and 29 were wounded.

At least 78 people were killed and more than 150 wounded earlier Monday after two nearly simultaneous bombs struck a predominantly Shiite commercial area in central Baghdad in the deadliest attack in two months, officials said.

The U.S. military reported the deaths of two Marines in a particularly bloody weekend for American forces in Iraq -- a total of 27 dead in just two days.

Bring the troops home!

Iraqi Government Not Amused By UN Report

Aside from criticizing the 2006 casualty figure of 34,452 civilians killed as reported by the UN, the government is also upset at the mention of human rights violations affecting homosexuals. If this is the type of government we're spending our hundreds of billions of dollars to establish and attempting to secure, can I please get a refund for my contribution?

The report was superficial in dealing with several points," spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said.

[...]

"The current environment of impunity and lawlessness invites a heightened level of insecurity for homosexuals in Iraq. Armed Islamic groups and militias have been known to be particularly hostile toward homosexuals frequently and openly engaging in violent campaigns against them," the U.N. report read. "There has been a number of assassinations of homosexuals in Iraq."

Such a topic is widely frowned at in this predominantly Muslim country and gays usually keep their sexual orientation a secret.

"There was information in the report that we cannot accept here in Iraq. The report, for example, spoke about the phenomenon of homosexuality and giving them their rights," al-Dabbagh said. "Such statements are not suitable to the Iraqi society. This is rejected."

"They should respect the values and traditions here in Iraq," he said.

Just lovely.

What $1.2 Trillion Can Buy

That is the title of an article in today's New York Times by David Leonhardt and it's quite interesting.

I recently suggested that for a fraction of the Iraq war cost, America could eliminate the problem of homelessness considering the cost of the war represents over $500,000 for each homeless person in the country.

This was perhaps the most interesting fact from the article, just in case some of you forgot:

In the days before the war almost five years ago, the Pentagon estimated that it would cost about $50 billion. Democratic staff members in Congress largely agreed. Lawrence Lindsey, a White House economic adviser, was a bit more realistic, predicting that the cost could go as high as $200 billion, but President Bush fired him in part for saying so.

[...]

“This war has skewed our thinking about resources,” said Mr. Wallsten, a senior fellow at the Progress and Freedom Foundation, a conservative-leaning research group. “In the context of the war, $20 billion is nothing.”

So very true and what a shame.

How Not to Execute

Perhaps the "Iraqi government" should reconsider the death penalty after Saddam Hussein's half brother was decapitated as a result of his hanging. While there is no humane method of killing someone, these people can't seem to accomplish a routine execution without botching it and subsequently creating more chaos.

Many of the people who had gathered considered the decapitation of Barzan Ibrahim to be a calculated insult, another act by the Shiite-dominated government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to humiliate followers of the executed former president and all his fellow Sunni Arabs. A doctor inspected the remains to assess the government's explanation that the noose inadvertently took off the head after Ibrahim dropped through the trapdoor of the scaffold.

[...]

In many parts of Iraq, the executions set off new waves of anger and celebration along sectarian lines, though Maliki's government had gone to great pains to prevent the type of chaotic spectacle that accompanied Hussein's hanging two weeks ago, when Shiite witnesses in the execution chamber taunted Hussein.

Meanwhile, the UN is reporting that 34,000 Iraqi civilians were killed in 2006, a far higher number than previously reported. A slightly larger number were injured.