Saturday, July 15, 2006

Comedian Red Buttons Dies at 87
By MERVYN ROTHSTEIN
Red Buttons, the Borscht Belt comic who rose to instant television stardom on his own variety show in 1952, descended to obscurity three years later after his program was canceled and then rebounded to win an Academy Award for his dramatic performance in the 1957 film “Sayonara,” died yesterday at his home in Los Angeles. He was 87.
The cause was vascular disease, his publicist, Warren Cowan, said.
To television watchers in the mid-1970’s, Mr. Buttons was perhaps best recognized as a witty regular and master of the gentle barb on the NBC comic tribute series “The
Dean Martin Celebrity Roast.” But it was his Oscar, for best supporting actor, that brought him his greatest renown almost 20 years earlier.
The award was for his portrayal of Airman Joe Kelly, an American serviceman in Japan after World War II who is ostracized by the military for marrying a Japanese woman. Miyoshi Umeki, who played his wife, received the best supporting actress award. The movie starred
Marlon Brando and was based on the James A. Michener novel.
Five years earlier, CBS executives, looking for a show to compete with
Milton Berle’s “Texaco Star Theater” on NBC on Tuesdays at 8 P.M., turned to Mr. Buttons. At the time he was a 33-year-old comedian who had made guest appearances on the Berle show and won some acclaim for his acting in a 1951 episode of the “Suspense” television series.
CBS gave Mr. Buttons his own half-hour variety program, which began Oct. 14, 1952. Later that evening, switchboard operators at the network reported one of the biggest and most enthusiastic responses to a single program they had ever received. Audiences enjoyed his sketch comedy routines and his characters. He was Rocky Buttons, a punch-drunk prizefighter with a heart of gold; Muggsy Buttons, a juvenile delinquent with a core of kindness; Keeglefarven, a German military officer presented in dialect, and the Kupke Kid, a child laborer who aroused in others a compulsion to pick him up after first knocking him down.
“I’m a little guy, and that’s what I play — a little guy with a little guy’s troubles,” said Mr. Buttons, who stood 5-foot-6 and weighed 140 pounds in his prime.
Between bits this puckish, almost elflike comedian would cup his ears and sing, “Hey-hey, ho-ho, strange things are happening,” providing different strange things each week. Soon “Strange things are happening” became a catch phrase among the nation’s teenagers.
The success didn’t last. As the second season began, television audiences lost interest in Mr. Buttons, and his ratings dropped. Frantically seeking to rediscover a winning format, he hired and fired writers almost every week, among them Larry Gelbart and
Neil Simon. The revolving door for writers — 163 of them over two years — became a standing joke in show business. Nothing helped. The ratings kept plummeting, and his CBS show was canceled.
NBC, however, picked him up, and in the third year a situation-comedy format was tried in a new time slot. But the ratings didn’t approach their first-year levels, and in May 1955, his sponsor, Pontiac, ended the show.
For the next two years, Mr. Buttons appeared mainly in nightclubs, although he made an occasional television guest appearance. He was 36 and rich, but newspaper articles at the time called him a has-been.
But then the director
Joshua Logan, after some initial misgivings about using a comedian in a dramatic role, asked him to join the cast of “Sayonara.” An eager Mr. Buttons went off to Japan. While on location, he sent his agent a postcard of Kyoto’s snow-covered hills. On the front, harking back to his early stand-up days playing the Catskills, he wrote, “Hey, look, you’ve got me working in the mountains again.”
Red Buttons was born Aaron Chwatt on Feb. 5, 1919, on the Lower East Side of Manhattan. He was the son of Michael Chwatt, a millinery worker, and Sophie Chwatt, a housewife. Aaron and his family — there was an older brother, Joe, and a younger sister, Ida — lived in a tenement apartment on Third Street between Avenues A and B. It was a tough neighborhood. “On my block, you either grew up to be a judge or you went to the electric chair,” he often said.
He first attended P.S. 104 on East Fourth Street, but then his family moved to the Bronx, to 176th Street and Marmion Avenue. He made his first stage appearance at age 12 under the name Little Skippy, dressed in a sailor suit and singing “Sweet Jennie Lee” in an amateur contest at the Fox Corona Theater. He won.
While attending Evander Childs High School, Aaron got a job as a bellhop and singer at Ryan’s, a bar on City Island in the Bronx, where he got the name Red Buttons: since he wore a bellhop uniform, he was, naturally, called Buttons, and at the time his hair was red. The name stuck, even though his hair turned dark brown as he got older. (Mr. Logan had him dye it red for “Sayonara.”)
His first job in the Catskills was in the summer of 1935, as a singer at Greenfield Park. “My voice cracked, so they made me a comedian,” he recalled. He began working in burlesque, at Minsky’s, at the Gaiety on Broadway and 46th Street, and in Western Wheel, the Midwest burlesque circuit, doing comic numbers like “Sam, You Made the Pants Too Long.” In 1940 he married a stripper known as Roxanne, but the marriage was annulled two years later.
In 1941, José Ferrer discovered him and cast him in a Broadway-bound comedy called “The Admiral Takes a Wife.” The play received good out-of-town reviews, came into New York on a Sunday in December and was scheduled to open the following day. The comedy, however, was a satire on life at a naval base in Hawaii: Pearl Harbor. The Sunday it arrived was Dec. 7, 1941, and the show never opened.
Mr. Buttons joined the Army in 1943 and spent the rest of World War II in its entertainment unit, appearing in a hit show called “Winged Victory,” which was written and directed by
Moss Hart. It was turned into a movie in 1944. Other future stars in the show included Mario Lanza, Karl Malden, Barry Nelson, Louis Nye, Peter Lind Hayes, John Forsythe and Gary Merrill. They were recruited by Irving Lazar, who would acquire the nickname “Swifty” and become one of Broadway and Hollywood’s leading agents.
After the war, Mr. Buttons returned to nightclubs and appeared in an occasional Broadway flop. Then came the “Suspense” episode, stardom, his descent and the Oscar.
In 1966, he starred on a short-lived television series, “The Double Life of Henry Phyfe,” as a meek accountant-turned-spy. His other movies included “Imitation General” (1958), “Hatari!” with
John Wayne (1962), “The Longest Day” (1962), “A Ticklish Affair” (1963), “They Shoot Horses, Don’t They?” (1969), “The Poseidon Adventure” (1972), “Gable and Lombard” (1976) and “It Could Happen to You” (1994).
After his run with “Dean Martin’s Celebrity Roast” in the 1970’s, he landed other television roles, portraying the White Rabbit in the 1985 musical miniseries “Alice in Wonderland” and, in 1987, playing the recurring role of Al Baker on “Knots Landing.” He also made guest appearances on “Roseanne” and “E.R.”
In 1995, he celebrated his 60th year in show business by presenting a one-man show, “Buttons on Broadway,” at the Ambassador Theater. Writing in The New York Times, Ben Brantley said Mr. Buttons was “trim and agile at 76” and “able to command a stage for nearly two hours with a medley of Borscht Belt and burlesque shtick, songs and impersonations.”
In his later years he was a sought-after entertainer for Friars Roasts and other testimonial dinners with his “Never had a dinner” routine, identifying famous people who had never been so honored. Example: “Abe Lincoln, who said ‘A house divided is a condominium,’ never had a dinner.”
He also remained in the public eye as the spokesman in an advertising campaign for the Century Village retirement communities in Florida. Of his three marriages, two ended in divorce early in his career. His third wife, Alicia, died in 2001. They had a daughter, Amy Norgress, and a son, Adam, who survive him, as do his brother and sister.
“I’ve been a performer all my life,” Mr. Buttons once said. “It’s a very satisfactory profession. You get paid off on the spot. When they cheer, that’s payment.”

Friday, July 14, 2006

Two nabbed in eBay computer sales scam
BY DIANA MOSKOVITZdmoskovitz@MiamiHerald.com
Kevin Dunn kept calling computer company 3COM with the same problem -- the computer routers at his small business were broken.
3COM would send him new routers and wait for Dunn, 27, to send back the others.
But there were no broken routers. And Dunn's ''small business'' was ripping off 3COM, said the Broward Sheriff's Office in announcing his arrest Thursday.
According to BSO:
The Lauderhill man would take the company labels off with a blow dryer, add his own, then sell what he got from 3COM on eBay.
Then he would call 3COM complaining of another broken router.
Those calls added up to nearly $670,000 in computer equipment, mostly routers, kept in a North Lauderdale storage unit, BSO said. More routers had likely been sold.
Dunn also was among the main players in a network of similar scams across the country and overseas, adding up to more than $2 million, said Sgt. Jay Leiner with BSO's economic crime unit.
Arrests in those frauds are ongoing.
Because the case involved wire fraud, the United States Secret Service also helped with the investigation.
''This is bigger than just here in Broward,'' BSO spokesman Elliot Cohen said.
On Thursday, the warehouse's contents were displayed, mostly stacks of brown boxes wrapped in tape labeled EVIDENCE. Most of the goods were routers, which small businesses use to create computer networks, BSO's Cohen said.
The victims include several large computer companies, including 3COM and Nortel, Cohen said. 3COM estimates its losses at more than $1 million, according to the arrest documents.
CALL CENTER
Between Feb. 24 and March 23, Dunn called 3COM's Toronto call center five times. Each times he called with the same fake business name, InverraryCRPC1, asking for anywhere from three to eight new routers, according to the documents.
At least once, Dunn gave his home address, 3301 Spanish Moss Ter., a condo in Lauderhill's Inverrary community.
The name was one of several bogus business titles Dunn used for his orders, Cohen said.
Dunn also alternated where he had the routers shipped, varying between his address, vacant homes and other businesses that he would stake out to intercept the packages, Cohen said.
3COM noticed the ordering pattern and contacted law enforcement. Officers went on eBay in April and bought a 3COM router that typically sells for $2,500 for just $1,500, the documents stated.
The router was traced to Dunn's home, and a K. Dunn signed for the check.
On Monday, officers bought three more from the same eBay account for close to $5,000.
The next day, Dunn and his girlfriend, Tamar Richards, 26, went to a Federal Express office in Pompano Beach, packed three boxes labeled 3COM and handed them to a FedEx employee, according to documents.
When they walked outside, both were arrested.
Richards, who said she had been dating Dunn for about a year, then told authorities about the warehouse at Extra Space Storage, 2048 S. State Road 7.
A typed list of 23 product numbers for 3COM routers also was found inside one of Dunn's shirt pockets, the documents stated.
OWNS CONDO
Dunn owns his $100,000 condominium in a Lauderhill gated community, according to the Broward property appraiser's office. He also was the registered owner of a Ford F150 truck and a Suzuki motorcycle.
Richards, of Tamarac, told officers she had known Dunn for seven years.
Dunn and Richards were charged with organized scheme to defraud. Dunn also was charged with dealing in stolen property and grand theft, BSO said.
Both were out of jail on bond Thursday.
© 2006 MiamiHerald.com and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved
.

Monday, July 10, 2006

In a culture where self-importance and private ambition often lead to disaster, here is a simple reminder why we need to believe in God. Rev. Billy Graham's gentle eloquence at the 911 memorial 14 Sept. 2001. He reminds us that human enterprise is lethal without remembering that we are accountable to God, not just literally, but morally. Consider the savage insanity of Muhammad Atta and the quiet dignity of Billy Graham. You need not be a Christian or even religious to get Grahams central point. Recognition that what we are and that which we may do, is finally a matter of judgment by God and generations to come. There must acceptance of a moral force in the universe, even if it is a human construct founded in fantasy.

Simple decency from a gentle spirit.
President and Mrs. Bush, I want to say a personal word on behalf of many people. Thank you, Mr. President, for calling this day of prayer and remembrance. We needed it at this time.
We come together today to affirm our conviction that God cares for us, whatever our ethnic, religious, or political background may be. The Bible says that He's the God of all comfort, who comforts us in our troubles. No matter how hard we try, words simply cannot express the horror, the shock, and the revulsion we all feel over what took place in this nation on Tuesday morning. September eleven will go down in our history as a day to remember.
Today we say to those who masterminded this cruel plot, and to those who carried it out, that the spirit of this nation will not be defeated by their twisted and diabolical schemes. Someday, those responsible will be brought to justice, as President Bush and our Congress have so forcefully stated. But today we especially come together in this service to confess our need of God.
We've always needed God from the very beginning of this nation, but today we need Him especially. We're facing a new kind of enemy. We're involved in a new kind of warfare. And we need the help of the Spirit of God. The Bible words are our hope: God is our refuge and strength; an ever present help in trouble. Therefore we will not fear, though the earth give way, and the mountains fall into the heart of the sea.
But how do we understand something like this? Why does God allow evil like this to take place? Perhaps that is what you are asking now. You may even be angry at God. I want to assure you that God understands these feelings that you may have. We've seen so much on our television, on our -- heard on our radio, stories that bring tears to our eyes and make us all feel a sense of anger. But God can be trusted, even when life seems at its darkest.
But what are some of the lessons we can learn? First, we are reminded of the mystery and reality of evil. I've been asked hundreds of times in my life why God allows tragedy and suffering. I have to confess that I really do not know the answer totally, even to my own satisfaction. I have to accept by faith that God is sovereign, and He's a God of love and mercy and compassion in the midst of suffering. The Bible says that God is not the author of evil. It speaks of evil as a mystery. In 1st Thessalonian 2:7 it talks about the mystery of iniquity. The old testament prophet Jeremiah said "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure." Who can understand it?" He asked that question, 'Who can understand it?' And that's one reason we each need God in our lives.
The lesson of this event is not only about the mystery of iniquity and evil, but secondly it's a lesson about our need for each other. What an example New York and Washington have been to the world these past few days. None of us will ever forget the pictures of our courageous firefighters and police, many of whom have lost friends and colleagues; or the hundreds of people attending or standing patiently in line to donate blood. A tragedy like this could have torn our country apart. But instead it has united us, and we've become a family. So those perpetrators who took this on to tear us apart, it has worked the other way -- it's back lashed. It's backfired. We are more united than ever before. I think this was exemplified in a very moving way when the members of our Congress stood shoulder to shoulder the other day and sang "God Bless America."
Finally, difficult as it may be for us to see right now, this event can give a message of hope -- hope for the present, and hope for the future. Yes, there is hope. There's hope for the present, because I believe the stage has already been set for a new spirit in our nation. One of the things we desperately need is a spiritual renewal in this country. We need a spiritual revival in America. And God has told us in His word, time after time, that we are to repent of our sins and return to Him, and He will bless us in a new way. But there's also hope for the future because of God's promises. As a Christian, I hope not for just this life, but for heaven and the life to come. And many of those people who died this past week are in heaven right now. And they wouldn't want to come back. It's so glorious and so wonderful. And that's the hope for all of us who put our faith in God. I pray that you will have this hope in your heart.
This event reminds us of the brevity and the uncertainty of life. We never know when we too will be called into eternity. I doubt if even one those people who got on those planes, or walked into the World Trade Center or the Pentagon last Tuesday morning thought it would be the last day of their lives. It didn't occur to them. And that's why each of us needs to face our own spiritual need and commit ourselves to God and His will now.
Here in this majestic National Cathedral we see all around us symbols of the cross. For the Christian -- I'm speaking for the Christian now -- the cross tells us that God understands our sin and our suffering. For He took upon himself, in the person of Jesus Christ, our sins and our suffering. And from the cross, God declares "I love you. I know the heart aches, and the sorrows, and the pains that you feel, but I love you." The story does not end with the cross, for Easter points us beyond the tragedy of the cross to the empty tomb. It tells us that there is hope for eternal life, for Christ has conquered evil, and death, and hell. Yes, there's hope.
I've become an old man now. And I've preached all over the world. And the older I get, the more I cling to that hope that I started with many years ago, and proclaimed it in many languages to many parts of the world. Several years ago at the National Prayer Breakfast here in Washington, Ambassador Andrew Young, who had just gone through the tragic death of his wife, closed his talk with a quote from the old hymn, "How Firm A Foundation." We all watched in horror as planes crashed into the steel and glass of the World Trade Center. Those majestic towers, built on solid foundations, were examples of the prosperity and creativity of America. When damaged, those buildings eventually plummeted to the ground, imploding in upon themselves. Yet underneath the debris is a foundation that was not destroyed. Therein lies the truth of that old hymn that Andrew Young quoted: "How firm a foundation."
Yes, our nation has been attacked. Buildings destroyed. Lives lost. But now we have a choice: Whether to implode and disintegrate emotionally and spiritually as a people, and a nation, or, whether we choose to become stronger through all of the struggle to rebuild on a solid foundation. And I believe that we're in the process of starting to rebuild on that foundation. That foundation is our trust in God. That's what this service is all about. And in that faith we have the strength to endure something as difficult and horrendous as what we've experienced this week.
This has been a terrible week with many tears. But also it's been a week of great faith. Churches all across the country have called prayer meetings. And today is a day that they're celebrating not only in this country, but in many parts of the world. And the words of that familiar hymn that Andrew Young quoted, it says "'Fear not, I am with thee. Oh be not dismayed for I am thy God and will give thee aid. I'll strengthen thee, help thee, and cause thee to stand upon my righteous, omnipotent hand."
My prayer today is that we will feel the loving arms of God wrapped around us and will know in our hearts that He will never forsake us as we trust in Him. We also know that God is going to give wisdom, and courage, and strength to the President, and those around him. And this is going to be a day that we will remember as a day of victory. May God bless you all.
And now, something different!
From The Ayn Rand Institute:
Keep Our "Addiction" to Oil, End Our Allergy to Self-Assertion
By Alex Epstein
Politicians and commentators from both parties are decrying our "addiction to oil." They exhort us to embrace costly programs to reduce our consumption of oil as quickly as possible. The primary rationale for this is national security. Our oil consumption is dangerous because, in the words of a New York Times editorial, "Oil profits that flow to Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries finance . . . terrorist acts." With the same justification, President Bush has called for cutting "more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025 . . . and mak[ing] our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past."
But Americans are not "addicted" to oil. "Addiction" implies an intense desire for something harmful. But we do not desire oil irrationally; we consume it because it is a wonderful, life-sustaining product. Oil is unmatched as an efficient, safe source of portable energy. It enables us to affordably ride, drive, or fly anywhere we wish, and fuels a transportation industry that enables us to trade anything with anyone from anywhere around the world. We are not addicted to oil any more than we are addicted to the myriad values it makes possible, like fresh food, imported electronics, going to work, or visiting loved ones.
The problem we face today is not our love of oil, but oil-rich dictatorships like Iran and Saudi Arabia--who use ill-gotten profits to spread totalitarian Islamic ideology around the world and terrorize us with their minions. The solution is not to punish ourselves by renouncing oil--but to punish our enemies until they renounce their aggression.
As the most powerful nation on earth, the United States has many options at its disposal.
One means of ending the Iranian and Saudi threat would be to issue an ultimatum to these regimes: cease all anti-American aggression immediately, or be destroyed. Many, witnessing the Iraqi quagmire, might scoff at this option. But such a course is eminently practical if America's unsurpassed military forces are committed to the task, not of "rebuilding" or "liberating" these states, but of making their inhabitants fear threatening America ever again.
Another means of addressing the threat would be to remove Middle Eastern oil fields from Iranian and Saudi control, put them in the hands of private companies, and then employ surveillance and troops to secure that oil supply. Contrary to popular assumption, Middle Eastern dictatorships have no right to their nationalized oil fields, which should be private property--the property of individuals who work to find and extract the oil.
Still another option might be a comprehensive, all-out embargo by the United States and its allies to starve the leader of the enemy, Iran, until the regime crumbles and the Islamic totalitarians lose their will to fight.
Which policy is best is for military strategists to determine--but our politicians and intellectuals refuse to consider any of these options. Instead, they decry our "addiction to oil," condemn us for not all wanting to drive Priuses, and urge, as penance, that we cut ourselves from the world oil market. Can anyone honestly believe that such asceticism will protect us from attack--given that Saudi Arabia and Iran both actively sponsored terrorism when oil was $10 a barrel?
Why do our leaders eagerly embrace impractical policies that punish Americans, while eschewing practical options that would punish our enemies? Because the practical policies would involve "going to war for oil," "America imposing its will on the rest of the world," upsetting the "international community," and all of today's other foreign policy taboos--i.e., they are branded immoral because they involve American self-assertion.
Our leaders do not believe that America has a moral right to assert itself in self-defense. This is why we engage in self-effacing, appeasing "diplomacy" with easily defeated enemies like Iran and Saudi Arabia. And this is why, when we actually do go to war (after such diplomacy fails), we pull our punches and declare our purpose to be lavishing the good life on hostile foreign peoples. Now, after over 2,500 American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars put in service of mob rule in Iraq, we are told to give up the lifeblood of our civilization rather than wage real war against our enemies. Could anything be more encouraging to our enemies than the knowledge that America will make Americans, not them, pay for their aggression?
This senseless sacrifice must stop. It is past time to adopt a foreign policy of self-assertion and self-interest--i.e., a truly moral policy.
Alex Epstein is a fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine,

Sunday, July 09, 2006



The Sunday Times
July 09, 2006
Stop dithering, this dictator's really got WMDsAndrew Sullivan
Case No 1: a genocidal, certifiably loopy dictator with a history of nuclear, chemical and biological weaponry has the potential to hand such WMDs to terrorists and wreak havoc on the West.
Case No 2: a genocidal, certifiably loopy dictator with a history of nuclear, chemical and biological weaponry has the potential to hand such WMDs to terrorists and wreak havoc on the West.
There’s a difference, though. The first hasn’t aimed such weaponry at the West, and is hemmed in by Anglo-American warplanes. The second has launched missiles aimed at the American homeland, has the potential to murder millions in a country allied with the West, has constructed concentration camps for dissidents, has starved thousands to death and is far further along in the nuclear bomb-making process. Who’s the bigger worry?
According to President George W Bush, it’s the first guy. Saddam Hussein was exponentially more dangerous in 2002 than Kim Jong-il is today. In 2002 we were told of the necessity of acting before a threat became imminent.
Speeches were given; ultimatums were delivered; the public was warned that acquiescence to Saddam’s attempt to get WMDs was not an option. “We cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud,” the president warned.
And yet a day after a nuclear-armed dictator fired failed missiles at Hawaii Bush had to be cornered at a doughnut shop in the middle of a motorcade trip to provide a response. The Washington Post noted that his national security meeting last week was devoted to . . . Cuba.
His spokesman told the press: “It’s been our policy all along that we do not act unilaterally . . . There are attempts to try to describe this almost in breathless world war three terms. This is not such a situation.”
Does that sound like the Bush you remember? There are, of course, differences between North Korea today and Iraq four years ago.
It was partly because Saddam did not yet have a nuclear capacity that he could be tackled militarily.
Kim is one step ahead of Saddam on that one. Saddam didn’t have the blackmail of a potentially obliterated Seoul either — and he sat precariously at the geographical nexus of radical Islamism in the Middle East. Kim is geographically and culturally about as far away from radical Islam as one can imagine.
But there are also similarities: Russia and China are content to block meaningful action against North Korea, just as they were with Saddam’s Iraq. Kim could easily team up with terrorists to attack the West. There is an “axis of evil” after all. Who coined that term again? Remind me.
You can, of course, make an argument that removing Saddam came first precisely because it was doable and he was less of a threat. You can also argue that a multilateral approach works best with North Korea, because its neighbours are far more vulnerable than the US and have a greater interest in containment.
In fact, I’d be largely persuaded by such arguments. But what you cannot do is argue as Dick Cheney and Bush have consistently argued about the WMD threat, then look at their current position on North Korea and consequently make any coherent sense at all.
The Cheney argument, as outlined in Ron Suskind’s book-length brief for the CIA, The One Percent Doctrine, is clear. It is that if there is a 1% chance that terrorists can get access to WMDs, the US, after 9/11, must treat that chance as a 100% certainty.
Under that Cheney risk-rubric, Kim is easily the gravest threat to American lives since Bush took office. He has the materials; he has the motive; all he lacks is a delivery system.
And the failure of his missile delivery system is not a cause for relief. It merely means that if he is to deliver the nuclear goods to his enemies, he has to find another way.
A suitcase? An Al-Qaeda suicide bomber? A Pakistani intelligence agent?
You think these options aren’t available to him? If you live anywhere near a western city you should be concerned. Or at least a little more concerned than a president who spent the afternoon at Dunkin’ Donuts.
Again, you see the strange, almost surreal disconnection between the president’s words and his actions. He has indeed described the current conflict between civilisation and terror masters armed with WMDs as the equivalent of the third world war.
And yet he still refuses to send two more divisions to pacify Baghdad, a critical element in stabilising Iraq. He hasn’t enlarged the size of the military, and has had to rely on part-time reservists to hold the line in hell-holes in Iraq.
He won’t raise taxes on petrol, an act that would by itself rob the terror states of the Middle East of long-term financial leverage over the United States (as well as help stimulate technology that could help stave off global warming).
He won’t confront Saudi Arabia over its continued financing of Wahhabist terror. He hasn’t captured Osama Bin Laden, and he’s content to pursue multilateral blather against a real nuclear threat from one of the vilest dictatorships on the planet.
As someone who backed the resolution and analysis of this president in the run-up to war against Saddam, and who still hopes for the best in Iraq, I can only say I feel somewhat conned.
Perhaps if the president had publicly announced that he had miscalculated the Iraq risk, had now abandoned the Cheney doctrine, and, by the sheer weight of experience, was now a Kissingerian realist, able to tolerate the risk of the unthinkable, I could adjust. But he hasn’t.
He has just behaved according to one assumption for four years and is now behaving according to another one.
It’s up to us to adjust to his incoherence. Forgive me if the adjustment is a little unnerving and bordering on, shall we say, absurd.
Copyright 2006 Times Newspapers Ltd.




July 9, 2006
Editorial NY TIMES
Signs of Life in Congress

Congress, which is supposed to push back against executive attempts to amass overweening power, has hardly played its proper role when it comes to George W. Bush. In the past, when evidence arose that the president had overstepped his authority, the Congressional response was generally to look for ways to make whatever Mr. Bush did retroactively legal. But the Supreme Court's decision on the Guantánamo Bay detention camp seems to have jolted even some of the most loyal Republicans back to reality. They are vowing that this time, they will not merely rubber-stamp presidential overreaching. Soon, Americans will get a sense of how seriously to take this newfound spine.
The court ruled, in a decision so strong that it sent shock waves through Washington, that Mr. Bush violated the Geneva Conventions and American law when he created commissions to try detainees outside established judicial procedure. The court rejected Mr. Bush's claim of a power to handle prisoners any way he wants and said it was up to Congress to set rules.
This week, three Congressional committees will hold hearings on the issue. The White House predictably asked Congress simply to legalize Mr. Bush's policies. But a wide range of senators rejected that and called for a serious look at the basic question: whether and how existing rules should be changed to deal with terrorists who are not in any army.
The court said the military commissions, which Vice President Dick Cheney and his team cooked up without bothering to consult military lawyers, violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which has rules of evidence and process similar to civilian law. Congress could simply apply the military court to the Guantánamo prisoners. But the code was created to try members of the United States armed forces and some experts make convincing arguments its use would not be appropriate for terrorist suspects.
Still, Congress could create a new kind of military commission, operating as closely as possible to United States military law. That is the proposal of Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, one of the Senate's experts on military law, and Arlen Specter, the Judiciary Committee chairman. It sounds reasonable, as long as lawmakers resist pressure from the administration to deny the prisoners any real rights, barring them from seeing classified evidence, admitting coerced confessions, excluding prisoners from hearings and sharply limiting their lawyers' ability to defend them.
The challenge for Congress is simply to create a vehicle for giving the prisoners their day in court that contains the protections that Americans believe any human being deserves before he can be locked away in an isolated prison forever. Coerced testimony should be banned. Classified material could be safeguarded by using the current civilian court practice, in which judges review such material and decide whether to share it with defense lawyers, who are cleared in advance.
The division here is not between people who want to win the war on terror and those who for some unfathomable reason do not. It is between an executive branch that seems bent on proving that the president has unlimited power and those who believe that the Constitution and the rule of law did not crumble along with the World Trade Center.
We would not be in this mess if Mr. Bush had followed the rules. If he had allowed the screening of captives on the battlefield, which the military wanted and the Geneva Conventions require, hundreds of innocent men would never have been sent to Gitmo. If he had asked Congress to create tribunals, instead of fashioning extralegal ones, some of those prisoners who really are terrorists might have been convicted by now in full view of the world.
Senator Graham put it just right the other day. "We don't need to change who we are to win the war," he said. "We need to create a system to meet the needs of a fair trial, the rights of the accused and the defense of the nation, that the world will see as fair and the nation can be proud of."
We hope Congress follows that spirit.

Friday, July 07, 2006


Putin fails to explain kissing boy on stomach
From Jeremy Page in Moscow
(Times of London)
AFTER a week of frenzied speculation across Russia, President Putin finally explained yesterday that he had kissed a young boy on the stomach in the Kremlin because he wanted to “stroke him like a kitten”.
But his explanation during a live webcast held by the BBC and a popular Russian browser left many viewers even more bemused.
The normally dour former KGB officer insisted that it was a spontaneous decision to approach the five-year-old, who was in a group of tourists, to lift his shirt and kiss his stomach.
“People came up and I began talking to them, among them this little boy. He seemed to me very independent, sure of himself and at the same time defenceless so to speak, an innocent boy and a very nice little boy,” Mr Putin said. “I tell you honestly, I just wanted to stroke him like a kitten and it came out in this gesture. There is nothing behind it.”
Russians occasionally kiss babies on the stomach, but almost never five-year-old boys.
The country was so stunned that the issue shot almost to the top of a list of more than 162,000 questions sent into www.yandex.ru, which cohosted the webcast yesterday.
None was more surprised than the little boy himself — identified in the Russian press as Nikita Konkin. The Izvestia daily reported that Nikita had refused to wash ever since.
“I just liked him and he liked me very much. I want to be president myself,” the newspaper quoted him as saying. Some political analysts suggested that the kiss was a clumsy attempt to soften Mr Putin’s image in the run-up to the G8 summit in St Petersburg from July 15 to 17.
The Kremlin has launched a huge publicity drive, with the help of Ketchum, an American PR firm, to counter critics of its campaign to curb democracy.
The PR team denies having anything to do with “that kiss”. It is, however, helping to organise media events like the webcast to give Mr Putin a chance to explain his policies to a Western audience.
Mr Putin used the opportuninty to defend his democratic credentials, his policies in Chechnya and his decision to cut off gas supplies to neighbouring Ukraine. He also tried to allay fears of a new Cold War by declaring his friendship for President Bush, whom he described as a “decent” person.
Mr Bush “is a very good partner for me with whom I can not only talk, but agree”, he said. “I want to note with pleasure that he’s a man who, not just because he’s President of the United States, but because of his personal, human qualities, I count among my circle of friends.”
He escaped some of the more trivial and fanciful questions, including one about a giant mythical octopus sleeping under the Pacific Ocean.
But after the webcast, journalists in the Kremlin studio did ask whether he recalled losing his virginity.
“I can’t remember exactly when I did it for the first time,” he said, laughing. “But I certainly remember when I did it the last time, to the exact minute.”

Rosewood