The other day I disparaged the pathetic Madison, Wisconsin newspaper, The Capital Times, for its inane letter publishing policy. I must continue the theme. On January 26, 2008, it published a long letter from area 9/11 conspiracy theorist Kevin Barrett. Excerpts, with my boldface:
I am out of a job because The Capital Times and other mainstream media outlets refuse to report the news....
Along with hundreds of other scholars, engineers, architects, and former high-level military, intelligence and executive branch officials..., I have pointed out that the official story of 9/11 is a ridiculous fairy tale....
Last week, the probable next prime minister of Japan, Yukihisa Fujita, grilled current prime minister Fukuda for half an hour about the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center and the staged events at the Pentagon and asked whether the Japanese police could arrest George W. Bush for his complicity in 9/11. Why wasn't that front page news?....
[M]y reputation has been ruined, at least in the eyes of the fewer and fewer people naive enough to believe the mainstream media...
Dear Editor: I am Yukihisa Fujita, a Japanese MP who was mentioned in a Jan. 26 letter to the editor by Kevin Barrett. I wish to correct two points in his letter:
1. I can never be the probable next prime minister because the prime minister of Japan has to be elected among Lower House MPs, while I am an Upper House MP! I do not have any position in the shadow Cabinet in the Democratic Party of Japan.
2. I never asked the Japanese police to arrest President Bush.
Yukihisa Fujita,
Japan
Some things aren't in the news because unexciting as it may be to the mind of the conspiracy buff they didn't happen.
Posted by: Mike ||
02/09/2008 09:30 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Like debunking their paranoid fantasy will stop them from believing it.
#2
Thanks, Mike. Who is Kevin Barrett? One of his UW colleagues calls him a fruitcake: Barrett, a Muslim convert, was recently cleared by the college to teach a course this fall titled, "Islam: Religion and Culture." Like many Muslims, he contends the 9-11 attacks were an "inside job" carried out by Bush administration officials and not Islamic terrorists. Specifically, Barrett argues Bush officials rigged the World Trade Center with incendiary devices to bring it down and start a war against Islam.
"He's a fruitcake," says Marshall F. Onellion, a physics professor at the University of Wisconsin. "He has no education in any engineering or science area pertinent to how, or whether, buildings fall down when hit by airplanes. Since he can't evaluate the evidence presented, he shouldn't have an opinion" that will influence students. ( Maybe Barrett got his engineering and architectural degrees from the Rosie O'Donnell Institute of Technology.)
For more fun Google: Kevin Barrett and add Muslim or Islam or Lone Rock.
#4
Mr. Barrett was cleared by the college to teach? On what grounds was he considered capable?
**********
checked GK's link
**********
Oh. The provost wrote to Mr. Barrett to ask him if he was able to contain his enthusiasm while teaching. Presumably promised to do so. Taqqiyah.
#5
I encountered two of these demented people demostrating at the Capital in Sacramento this last summer. I really think they need to start some meds because they are completly unhinged. I didn't want to verbally spare with them but I got them to tell me their story. Basically, they had NOTHING in their life except hatred for Bush prior to 9/11. Springle in some confusion after the attack and viola' we're on wacko express to BDS town. next time ask them if they have seen "Screw Loose Change" and watch them have a full-blown fit.
#6
"For the first time in history, fire melted steel".
Everybody knows steel columns and beams are harvested, growing in standard W and H shapes, but the hardest to grow are the tubes- square, rectangular and cylindrical, only a master farmer can grow those.
The people who espouse this nonsense should be publically ridiculed, heads shaved, painted loud colors and forced into the wilderness
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/09/2008 16:57 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Personally, I think truthers should be punished by being eviscerated with a chainsaw. Each truther will be given a lighter to melt the chainsaw chain before it's used on him. If his lighter melts the steel chain, he's free to go. If not, crank it up and let it rip!
#1
If this is true, imagine the possibilities....
We could tax all those hybrid vehicles for not producing enough greenhouse gasses, and just imagine the gold mine those wind farms will be..Im just thinking of the children, really
#2
I really want to get the ball rolling for the idea that if and when the MMGW crowd are proven wrong, that they are *punished*, not for their religious beliefs, but for oppressing others in their name.
That is, a published listing, right at the top of which are Al Gore and James Hansen of NASA, for through deception, of having defrauded the United States out of billions of dollars.
The list should be very inclusive, and identify individuals in very distinct categories:
1) Those who tried to create a public panic and change public policy for power and money. That they should be barred from public office and investigated for criminal fraud.
2) Those non-scientific figures who advocated on behalf of MMGW, to now be publicly shamed as fools.
3) Those scientific figures not experts in climatology who tried to influence decisions based on climatology, by pretending to be experts in that field.
4) Those scientific figures who are experts in climatology, who committed scientific fraud in the effort to support arguments not substantiated by the data, or altered data to support their theories.
5) Scientists and political figures who called for anti-democratic and authoritarian measures to be used against the public or their fellow scientists for not supporting the MMGW theory.
#4
We need a Big volcano eruption to prove al's global warming point (what else could have caused it?) and restore the cooling greenhouse equalibrium. Win win. Come on Krakatoa!
Why? In a counter-intuitive way, Iraq, Nam, and Vietnam Syndrome.
Ill explain. (As Ive been explaining to my friends who are liberal Democrats over the last few months.)
Independent voters are not just socially liberal suburban women (Junior League Republicans, etc.). They are also tough blue collar men. They dont like the Republicans on economics issues they dont care for free trade, globalization, anti-nanny statism, or any of that stuff. But they dont like to lose theyre proud, patriotic Americans. They are Im sure that youre sick of the term, but its apt Reagan Democrats.
Both major Democratic candidates have boxed themselves in unnecessarily, as Ive been saying again and again on Iraq.
People dont like the situation in Iraq. If you poll them, they say that it wasnt worth it, we shouldnt be there, etc., etc. That is the data my Democratic friends rely upon, when they say that Senators Clinton and Obamas positions on Iraq withdrawal within 60 days of inauguration are on solid ground. But heres the rub they dont want to lose. So around 55-60% of people at the same time have consistently been willing to follow the battle plan of General Petraeus.
The Democratic nominee is going to be running on a platform with the explicit plank of retreat and withdrawal from Iraq. This is an elemental signal to this Reagan Democrat portion of the populace they hear the words retreat & withdrawal, and they get images of helicopters leaving embassy roofs in their heads. Their response even people like Buchanan and Scarborough, both of whom thought that Iraq was and is a pretty bad idea, and who dont like Senator McCain very much is, Im damned if thats going to happen again on my watch.
John McCain is the one candidate who is credible on this issue. He has the moral authority to say, look, this is a terrible sacrifice our country is asking of its servicemen, but the consequences of retreat are far worse. This is biographical first, look at what he did in his time, second, his two young sons are serving. . . .
What John McCain is going to do is what he did in spring and summer 2007 hell go on the Daily Show again and take on Jon Stewart mano-a-mano, hell paint his campaign bus and plane pitch black with the sobriquet No Surrender and tour the countrys legion halls and town halls, and hell have about fifty interviews like this one with every major media personage. Pre-surge, this was a losing argument, as we saw in 2006. Now, however, given McCains political ownership of the surge
Itll all be No Surrender, Id rather lose a campaign than lose a war, and I choose to win, and, in spite of the fact that the majority of the American people does not agree with him on the issue, hell have a very real chance of taking a majority of the country with him on, as has been said before, the backs of belligerent older (or middle-aged) men who dont like the Iraq war but are damned if the country is going to go down to dishonour and defeat on their watch. (And who also dont like hippies.) For an example of how itll look, see how McCain handled New Hampshire, a rather anti-Iraq war state.
Thats more or less what were looking at, like it or not. As a Marine wag not a long time ago in Ramadi, America isnt at war. The Marine Corps is at war. America is at the mall. But the fact is that war has deeply injured the nation, deepened divides, doing damage on both sides of the aisle, and it has spread confusion and anger.
You go to war, things get broken. Bodies, lives and nations. That is what happens. The question is, what do you do with that? The war is not over and still has to be fought. The nation may be damaged, but must continue on. No matter who is elected, it will be a post-traumatic stress presidency.
Now the Republicans are getting ready to nominate a man who endured torture during years in a North Vietnamese prison. Expect the Democrat nominee, or more likely his or her surrogates, to make PTSD a campaign issue. The crazy, suicidal, homicidal tripwire vet has been a favorite figure of the anti-war left for a long time. Heres one. Heres another. Fringe cases. Dont worry, it will make it into the mainstream. Suicidal, rage-filled John McCain, unsuitable for president. Its already there, just below the surface of the temperament questions. Here the question is raised by someone whose commentary I usually enjoy and often agree with: A disparagement of two men who have given their nation superlative service in war and afterward.
The fact is, traumatic experiences are part of maturation. Extreme traumatic experiences are part of the common human experience. They were once something leaders were expected to have endured and grown from, if they were going to be leaders worthy of respect. It is only in the very recent past that humans in comfortable First World societies, have managed to put trauma at arms length, and for political purposes, stigmatize it. Trauma is not limited to war. It happens in cities and suburban neighborhoods. It happens on highways and in hospitals. It happens in homes. It happens in the halls of power.
Traumatic experiences teach you things about yourself and about others. They teach you how to make hard decisions in unforgiving situations. They both reveal character and offer quick, dirty instruction in the matter. They reveal who you can rely on and who you cant. They teach you what is important in life. So many lessons, most of them merciless, though so often teaching the value of life and of mercy. While traumatic experiences may leave you feeling alienated in a world that rejects old warriors as detrius, and mocks their experience, traumatic experiences do not separate you from life. They make you that much more a part of it.
Now we have a candidate who has been in heavy combat, having been shot down and beaten on capture, and years of torture and captivity. Throughout, he demonstrated himself to be a man of tremendous strength and character. And on his return continued to serve his nation, rising as a highly respected, level-headed senator.
Does he suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder? Not visibility. Does he have any symptoms of post-traumatic stress syndrome? Probably. Are those occasional outbursts part of it? Maybe. That puts him in the same category as hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of Americans who have experienced combat and perhaps captivity in war, and have gone on, despite the popular slurs, to live productive, stable, sometimes superlative lives. John F. Kennedy, for example. We all know maybe dont even know that we know men who endured combat from moderate to unimagineably intense, and went on with their lives. Theyve lived quietly among us, successful professionals and family men, who survived beatings and starvation as prisoners of the Japanese, the horrible combat of the Bulge and Iwo Jima, the jungles of Vietnam, now the deserts, mud-hut villages and labyrithine cities of Iraq, and the mountains of Afghanistan. And they have continued on. Not without having to deal with stress and trauma.
But if you havent experienced stress and trauma in your life, then what kind of life have you lived? Would you care to be led by someone who hasnt?
Posted by: Mike ||
02/09/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
Former US President Bill Clinton referred to Jammu & Kashmir as the most dangerous place on Earth: It is the only place where two nuclear powers are involved in violent conflict. Jammu & Kashmir represents one of the world's longest standing disputes as it has been in existence since the Partition of the Indian Sub-continent in 1947.
Numerous frameworks have been utilised to explain the Jammu & Kashmir conflict. Some have attempted to analyse it in the context of great power politics, arguing that the dynamics of the Cold War drove India and Pakistan into initial conflict despite the fact that the US and the Soviet Union did a great deal to bring about a compromise over Jammu & Kashmir. Others view it as a clash between Hindu and Muslim civilisations despite the fact that India has a larger Muslim population than Pakistan.
The question of why the Jammu & Kashmir conflict continues is the question of why Pakistan is so pre-occupied with wresting control over the Kashmir Valley from India. Some may object to this view, arguing that it is "politicians on both sides" who are most responsible for perpetuating the conflict. Though India views all of Jammu & Kashmir as an integral part of it, New Delhi is willing to settle the conflict by formalising the status quo and converting the Line of Control into an international border, a very rational policy that is realist in nature.
Pakistan's quest for Jammu & Kashmir has little to do with strategic, territorial or geopolitical aims and cannot by explained by realist or rationalist theories of international relations. The Kashmir Valley is a small landlocked region that only represents roughly 15 per cent of the total area of Jammu & Kashmir held by India. The chances of Pakistan wresting control of the Kashmir Valley from a larger and much more powerful India are next to nothing. Pakistan's economy cannot bear the strain of its large defence budget, and Pakistan puts itself at risk of military confrontation with a stronger power in its quest for the Kashmir Valley.
Pakistan's quest stems from its founding ideology, the two-nation theory, and its domestic politics. According to the two-nation theory, Muslims of the sub-continent were a nation distinct from the Hindus, with whom they could not live in peace and by whom they would be permanently oppressed in Hindu-majority India. Thus they needed to have their own homeland. Pakistan's conceding that a Muslim majority region that is contiguous with it can be a part of India would undermine the basis of its creation. Jammu & Kashmir also has ideological significance for India, being the foremost symbol of Indian secularism.
The two-nation theory, which was dubious to begin with, considering that Hindus and Muslims of the sub-continent shared the same languages, customs and culture, has faced challenges from a variety of ethnic groups in Pakistan. The Bengalis, who were the majority of the country's population, seceded in 1971, disproving the notion that Muslims of the sub-continent were a nation. Virtually every ethnic group, except the dominant Punjabis, has tried to secede at some point. Pursuing conflict with India over Jammu & Kashmir has been used as a way to overcome challenges that threaten the basis of Pakistan's national ideology and strengthen national cohesion.
The Pakistani military, the country's most powerful institution since its formation, has used the conflict with India to bring about and legitimise its dominance. The military views conflict with India as a way to justify its continuing prominence in Pakistani politics and its massive budget. It has been much more confrontational towards India than civilian Governments and has thwarted attempts by civilian leaders to improve relations with India.
For example, when Benazir Bhutto first came to power in 1988, she sought to improve relations with India. She took steps to stop Pakistan's support for insurgencies in Jammu & Kashmir and Punjab. Soon, however, she was forced to revert to the policies of Gen Zia-ul Haq. When Mr Nawaz Sharif came to power, he initiated a dialogue with Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who took a historic bus trip to Lahore in February of 1999. However, in the summer of 1999, the Pakistan Army launched the Kargil operation. According to Pakistan's former Foreign Secretary Niaz Naik, this was done to undermine Mr Sharif's peace initiative.
Every few years Indians and Pakistanis become puzzlingly optimistic about the prospects for a solution to the Jammu & Kashmir conflict, and the media in both countries creates the impression that a solution is around the corner. Given India's desire to maintain its territorial integrity and Pakistan's to change the status quo, the mutual exclusivity of Indian secularism and the two-nation theory, and the interests of the Pakistani military, solving the conflict is a near impossibility. There is simply no middle ground.
This is what makes Jammu & Kashmir a much harder dispute to solve than the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Despite the animosity both sides recognise that a change to the current status quo needs to occur: Israelis must feel secure and not have to face terrorism, and there must be a two-state solution. While it may be difficult to find a solution that satisfies Israel's desire for security and the Palestinians' for a viable state, the two are not completely mutually exclusive. In Jammu & Kashmir, however, India is perfectly fine with the status quo, while Pakistan has opposed it for 60 years.
There is perhaps a road that could lead to a potential solution. India's succeeding in reducing alienation in Jammu & Kashmir, ties between the two countries improving, and Pakistan becoming more democratic and liberal, could lay the groundwork for an agreement. Pakistan's national identity, albeit reformulated, could even be compatible with some kind of a settlement.
One of the integral components of Pakistan's identity as a haven for South Asia's Muslims has been a concern about the rights and struggles of Muslims worldwide. If India succeeds in reconciliation with the Kashmiris, Pakistan, instead of focussing narrowly on the ideas of the two-nation theory that Hindus and Muslims cannot co-exist, could argue that its quest for Jammu & Kashmir was not in vain and that support for the insurgency and keeping the issue highlighted internationally caused India to "take the aspirations of the Kashmiris seriously".
But Pakistan has not become more democratic and the Islamist forces are becoming stronger, not weaker. Most important, it is simply difficult to fathom that Pakistan will ever be willing to countenance officially rejecting the basis for its creation. Thus, one should not be optimistic at all about the prospects of a final solution to the Jammu & Kashmir conflict anytime in the near future.
— The writer, a US-based scholar, is the author of From Jinnah to Jihad: Pakistan's Kashmir Quest and the Limits of Realism
Posted by: john frum ||
02/09/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The more I look at Pakistan, the less difference---except for the scale effects---I see between it and Paleostan.
What's depressing is that top political and military leaders in Washington asked him to consider the move in the first place. The proposal to shift Gen. Petraeus out of Iraq reflects the unwillingness of the military as a whole to make the larger cultural changes required to succeed in tough counterinsurgency missions.
Gen. Petraeus has repeatedly pointed out that a key reason behind the improvements in Iraq revolved around the fact that Americans were walking the streets, living alongside Iraqis, forging close relationships with Iraqi soldiers and police, and demonstrating to the population a commitment to achieving enduring security. Indeed, a key requirement for success in war is consistency of effort over time. Only experience on the ground permits the acquisition of enough knowledge of the political landscape and personalities necessary to shape events and achieve political stability.
In short, removing such a successful leader from a mission in progress is senseless. It is also inconsistent with much of the America's wartime history.
George Washington served as commander of the American revolutionary forces for eight years, from 1775-1783. Without his resolute leadership and political instincts, it is likely that the Continental Army would have disintegrated.
In the Mexican War, Gen. Winfield Scott led the largest amphibious landing in the history of the U.S., near Vera Cruz. He was then able to achieve operational victory and strategic success by staying on as the military governor in Mexico City.
During World War II, Gens. Dwight D. Eisenhower and George C. Marshall served extended tenures in their respective positions. It would be hard to imagine the military changing these crucial commanders during the war.
Gen. Lucius Clay, initially Gen. Eisenhower's deputy, served for four years in Germany and was instrumental in initiating its reconstruction. With patience and determination, Clay established the foundation for Germany's postwar recovery.
In Korea, Gen. John Hodge served as the commander of U.S. occupying forces in the south from September 1945 to August 1948. While his record was mixed, he spent these years immersed in political infighting, mediating between Korean political factions and sustaining support for the mission in Washington. He helped to create institutions of government strong enough to withstand the invasion from the North, and three years of war.
Gen. Douglas MacArthur oversaw the occupation of Japan for six years from 1945 to 1951. He is credited with transforming the nation into a functioning democracy.
In Vietnam, the pacification policy begun in 1968 by Gen. Creighton Abrams might have achieved success had it begun earlier in the war. Abrams served for four years, integrating civil-military efforts to pacify and reconstruct the country.
Each of these wars represented distinct challenges and the outcomes were varied. Yet the effectiveness of the efforts depended in large measure on the detailed knowledge accrued by commanders, and on their ability to achieve unity of effort within their own teams and between the U.S. command and indigenous leaders.
Consistent effort over time is particularly important in counterinsurgency situations in which the political dimension of war is paramount. Forging the kind of political accommodation between the disparate groups necessary to address the fundamental causes of violence requires the development of close personal relationships.
The military acknowledges the need for dedicated headquarters and support structures to conduct long-duration missions. Forces must have staying power, and be able to identify and retain lessons learned as well as to sustain personal relationships.
Indeed, the military's own counterinsurgency (COIN) manual emphasizes the need to cultivate effective leaders in the host country. Younger officers deploying to and from Iraq have reinforced these themes, writing consistently about the importance of maintaining a stable presence and getting to know the political, social and cultural terrain.
Yet the turnover of top commanders in Iraq directly contradicts much of the COIN manual's observation that crafting a political solution over time is the only proven means by which insurgencies are defeated. Senior commanders play a huge role in integrating military policy with political goals. This is hard to achieve when top officers below Gen. Petraeus' rotate out either every seven months (for the U.S. Marines) or 12 to 15 months (for the U.S. Army). Not only will U.S. Army corps commander Gen. Raymond Odierno leave later this month, but his entire staff will as well.
While units at the brigade level and below have an extraordinarily high operational tempo and endure constant combat stresses, the situation is different with large, well-staffed headquarter units. Despite this fact, all are on the same rotation schedule.
Gen. Petraeus is likely being considered for a Combatant Command job as a reward for his superb performance in Iraq, and because the president wanted to recognize the general prior to the end of his administration -- particularly if the next administration turns out to be a Democratic one. But political considerations should not outweigh strategic imperatives. The decision to rotate top commanders out of complex situations is similar to a research lab deciding to remove its top scientist just as his team is on the verge of discovering an important new drug, or changing the coaching staff of an NFL team on an annual basis.
Certainly, remaining in a war zone for long periods of time is difficult and involves great personal sacrifice. But the military could take measures, such as allowing certain officers to make more frequent visits home or bring family members along on deployment in some circumstances, to lessen the burden. It also might consider other rewards for long service under arduous conditions.
What seems clear is that personnel decisions in wartime -- decisions made by the White House as well as top military leaders -- should be driven by what is required to accomplish the mission, rather than mechanistic peacetime policies that call for the periodic rotation of top commanders and their staffs.
#1
Mods -- I don't know what happened on that Petraeus post --- I was trying to correct the capitalization on Fall (all in the title)and I pressed ENTER and off it went posting!
#3
While units at the brigade level and below have an extraordinarily high operational tempo and endure constant combat stresses, the situation is different with large, well-staffed headquarter units. Despite this fact, all are on the same rotation schedule.
Like I said, some in the puzzle palace don't understand what being at WAR means. They try to impose a peacetime management [business as usual] system upon conducting war. In peacetime you rotate people through the commands trying to determine who'll be a good commander when the 'big' one comes. Guess what - when the big is in action, you don't continue that process when you find good people to do the work. It's not about 'career progression', its about winning the war.
#4
Procopius2k and others -- question that comes to mind with all of this. I recently read somewhere that Petraeus was named/brought in/assigned/whatever it is to become the chairman/head/the anointed one/ of the council/concave/meeting that decides on the promotion of generals.
As you can tell from above, I know just enough to ask more questions!
Question is: has that happened yet? If so, what results (like Colonels versed in COIN or learning COIN) and if not, when? And just how much say does Petraeus have? I would think, he would nudge for those with COIN experience or getting that experience.
#5
Pres. Bush has just nominated 4 or 5 Army generals for additional stars. They include LTG Odierno to 4 stars, which would assign him as the Vice Chief of Staff, running the army's day to day operations, after he rotates out of Iraq. Critics hated how the 4th ID took a warlike posture in Iraq during his first tour, but his leadership under the surge has been excellent.
I forget who the other 3 or 4 nominations for additional stars were among the Army generals proposed by Petraeus' board.
has been nominated for promotion to four-star general and assignment as the commander of U.S. Army Europe. Dempsey currently is the deputy commander of U.S. Central Command and previously served two tours in Iraq as a senior commander.
#7
It's going to take more than one or two boards to start to clear the deck. People outside don't understand the influence and power that branch institutions have in all this. Before the American Army had a General Staff, everything was done by branch. Those branches are still powerful and self interested institutions. While the modern 'senior management' organizational wire diagram shows a typical business design, anyone who has been in the beasts know that 'informal' organizations and relationships have significant influence. Thus the 'heavies' [old school armor, mech infantry, artillery - read Europe] and the lights [airborne, airmobile, cavalry, aviation, et al] vie for funding, resources, manpower and doctrinal commitment of the schools and training centers. The civies outside the walls on occasion glimpse some of this in-fighting when it occurs as with Petraeus [and the non-select Colonels who did so well in Iraq]. Unfortunately, the people who should referee this stuff are 90% political appointees who don't understand the environment and who's time is consumed just responding to Congress and making the paperwork move. Technically, some heads should be proverbially slammed against the wall and some people need to be retired early. If you check back to previous 'affairs' a lot of officers were relieved or retired when the real thing [war] hit the fan. Lincoln was famous for replacing generals who failed to deliver and sent others off to some form of American Siberia who played politics. It's happened in America's following war experience though to today, in one form or another. Let's just hope the ones who need to be moved along are done so quickly and not the ones we need. Notice how many of those already tapped to move on have earned the dubious mantle of McClellan?
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
