The Shotgun Effect

MSNBC - Israeli strike kills Hamas leader

“We condemn in strongest possible terms this Israeli crime of assassinating Dr. Rantisi. This is state terror, and the Israeli government is fully responsible for the consequences of this action,” Palestinian Cabinet minister Saeb Erekat said.

Well, that's an unusual comment to make from the Palestinian Cabinet, considering that the Palestinian State as been using state sponsored terror in its war to destroy the Israels. How can you take a comment like this seriously when the Palestinians have been using human bombs to kill civilians, while the Israelis have being trying to destroy the leadership of these terrorist groups.

With two successful attacks, i think it's a going to make the rest of these terrorist leaderships think twice about whether they want to continue this war against the Israels.

Toronto Sun: MONEY - Blowing fuse on caps

One of the few times that I don't think that free enterprise should be allowed to participate is in essential services. I believe that the government should control and regulate services that ordinary citizens rely on almost every day, such as education, hospitals, fire services, police services, ambulance services, water, insurance and power services. I don't think it's right to have corporate culture (profit at any cost) influencing these areas of responsibility. I'm sure BMC will disagree with me, but in some circumstances, profits are not the best motivator for supplying certain products. Imagine having to pay for a service call to get police to arrive at a neighbours house when you hear one of their windows break at 4 a.m? Imagine having to pay for a service call to the fire department to check out the smoke that's coming from an residential buildings apartment? Who should get the ambulance bill when you are sideswiped by a car running a red light?

Weeding out the waste in the governments spending should be on the top agenda with these services, not handing them over to corporations and hoping that they will supply an affordable product to the taxpayers.

Blowing fuse on caps

GRITS ARE BENT ON THROWING HYDRO USERS TO PRIVATE ELECTRICITY WOLVES
By LINDA LEATHERDALE, TORONTO SUN

McFLY, McFLY -- when will you stop lying? In a Sun editorial meeting just weeks before the election, Dalton McGuinty blurted out the words "public power."

And why not? He desperately wanted to become premier and poll after poll, including our own Sun poll, showed a majority of voters did not want Ontario's electricity market privatized, but wanted hydro to stay in government hands with more control and taxpayer accountability.

McGuinty also promised the Tory caps on electricity prices would remain. Another lie.

So, it should come as no surprise that yesterday -- at an Empire Club meeting -- McGuinty's energy minister promised sweet profits for private electricity players.

"There is a shortage of supply. There is a hungry group of consumers. There is opportunity," Dwight Duncan told the Bay Street audience.

Oh sure, he threw out the rhetoric of "regulated and competitive pricing" ... "we will never put Ontario consumers in jeopardy" ... and promised his new laws, effective June 2005, will "increase supply and conservation, and stabilize prices."

TIME WE PAID PRICE

But don't be fooled by a wolf wearing sheep's clothing.

Bottom line is Duncan says it's time us poor consumers realized we have to pay the price to produce electricity -- no matter who's profiteering from it.

So, figure it out: By next May -- when the hydro caps are lifted entirely -- we'll be thrown to wolves to pay whatever price future traders can get for an essential service taxpayers have already paid billions for.

Even a U.S. consumer magazine has warned of the evils of electricity deregulation.

"The conventional wisdom that deregulation is a smashing success is based on myths and half-truths," said an associate editor for Consumer Reports, a U.S. magazine backed by consumer advocacy group Consumers Union.

A few years ago, the magazine published an article warning deregulation of government monopolies led to broken promises, higher prices, deceptive marketing and dreadful service. And, in some cases, privatized services had to be bailed out with taxpayer money.

The editor also warned the very fact Enron spent most of the 1990s pushing for deregulation, while manipulating prices and policy, should be warning enough.

Enron's fraudulent antics led to a major blackout in California and ended in the biggest bankruptcy in U.S. history with destitute shareholders and employees losing $4 billion US.

SIDE WITH NDP

This is one of the rare times when I side with Ontario NDP Leader Howard Hampton, who says hydro is owned by Ontario taxpayers and it's the role of government to ensure safe, affordable and reliable electricity.

Duncan says the Tory price cap of 4.3 cents per kilowatt hour -- now at 4.7 cents for the first 750 kilowatt hours, and 5.5 cents for the remainder -- means we're subsidizing the cost of electricity with hydro debt growing by $850 million.

Excuse me -- but why were taxpayers paying for piggies at the hydro tax trough, with fat-cat contracts for consultants, million-dollar parachutes for new hydro brass, sweetheart deals for political friends, and gaming in the open market. Enough!

As Andrew Muller, president of the Society of Energy Professionals, points out about Duncan's new plan: "There's a little something in it for just about every corporate stakeholder that's been lining up for a piece of it."

It's time to listen the people, like Sun reader Karen Spratt: "I'm normally for free enterprise, but with this being an essential service and people at a company's mercy, I do not think hydro should be privatized."

My warning: Bankrupt consumers and small businesses with skyrocketing electricity bills and you won't have an economy to govern.

Well, since we are on the subject of Movie's, i thought this was an interesting arcticle from Slate.msn.com. It's a concise article on how movie profits and losses are calculated by the accountant, not the revenue generated.

How Much Did The Alamo Really Cost?
$100 million? Or $140 million? How to call a studio's bluff.
By Brendan I. Koerner
Posted Wednesday, April 14, 2004, at 12:47 PM PT

The consensus is that Disney's The Alamo is a box-office dud, raking in a paltry $9.1 million over its first weekend. But opinions differ as to how much the movie cost to make: The New York Times cited a figure of $100 million, while the Associated Press said $140 million. How do box-office analysts determine a movie's budget?

First off, by assuming that whatever the studios say publicly is poppycock. Movie studios are notoriously crafty accountants, and they'll often release budget figures that help them obfuscate their true losses or gains. For clunkers like The Alamo, they'll frequently cite an unusually low budget figure, the better to conceal the bath they're taking. And for smash hits, they'll quote something on the high side, in order to make their profits seem slimmer (and thus provide an excuse for slighting the talent).

A studio's estimate of a movie's budget first shows up in the pages of Daily Variety when the project is greenlighted. The Alamo is an interesting case, as it was initially going to be helmed by Ron Howard and star Russell Crowe. But Howard demanded a production budget of around $130 million and wanted to make the movie with an R rating. Disney opted instead for The Rookie director John Lee Hancock, Dennis Quaid in place of Crowe, and a promised $75 million price tag. Of course, a studio picture that comes in under budget is filmdom's version of the Tasmanian tiger—rumored to exist, but virtually never seen.
Disney recently quoted a final Alamo budget of around $95 million. But independent analysts contend that the studio is already in damage-control mode, spewing out budget figures that are too low. The safe bet is that Disney's quote doesn't include marketing, which typically adds another $25 million-$35 million for a film like The Alamo that's designed to have broad appeal. (Films with more targeted audiences, like the pre-teen fantasy Ella Enchanted, can get away with smaller marketing budgets.) Also noteworthy is the fact that the film was originally slated for a December release but was delayed for further postproduction. The re-editing and incorporation of new effects likely cost millions more that Disney isn't mentioning.

There are some simple guesstimation tricks that box-office analysts can use to outsmart the studios. One is to do a back-of-the-envelope calculation based on the salaries of the talent. People in Hollywood are well-aware of Jack Nicholson's astronomical per-picture salary demands, for example, and a quick glance at the writing credits can hint at how many millions were spent on script revisions. It's easier to peg the talent cost on a mass-market movie like The Alamo than niche fare like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Actors in blockbusters often command their fees upfront, while actors in more highbrow films often forgo their advances in order to get the project rolling—although they'll demand a piece of the "back end," or profits.

It used to be easier to gauge a film's budget by tallying the number of special effects, especially obvious computer-generated images. But CGIs are now seamlessly woven into movies that aren't necessarily special-effect bonanzas, such as last year's Master and Commander. Rather than try and count the effects, a box-office analyst is better off cultivating studio flunkies as confidential sources—the only surefire way to know a movie's real cost.

Next question?

Explainer thanks Dennis McAlpine of McAlpine Associates, Anthony Kusich of Reel Source, and David Mumpower of Box Office Prophets.

Brendan I. Koerner is a fellow at the New America Foundation.

I'm going to respond a little bit to Monkey Leader's previous post on DVDs and the entertainment industry.

First, regarding the "Cave dance" from the Matrix Releoaded- the Kuwaiti censors did something truly beneficial to the viewing public. If only they had been able to censor it before the movie was released to North American audiences, the movie would have been infinitely better.

Now, as to the industry itself.

Despite the industry's constant cry of how they are losing money left, right and centre, it is very difficult for a movie to lose money nowadays. (I am of course, talking about the take before the Hollywood accountants get involved, those who managed to make Eddie Murphy's "Coming to America" megahit into a story of poverty and losses for the studio. The courts didn't buy that particular one. I wonder how badly the studios rip off the taxman?)

The studios have the box office receipts, both domestic and international, DVD sales, Pay-per-view, video store revenues (which I believe are much bigger than Monkey Leader does) and any product tie-ins. This comes to a lot of cash. A movie that is considered a dud often has its production costs compared to its domestic box office and the difference between the two take as a measure of how badly the movie flopped. The thing is that this comparison doesn't take into account all of the other revenue streams that the movie will ultimately earn.

Okay, it's been a while since I've used Blogger. There's this lovely little button in the post area marked "draft". Thinking that this is like hotmail, where one can make a draft, and then save it to work on it later, I click it and then my post dissappears.

Where the heck did it go? I can't find it anywhere!

Second Note: the 'URL' field just below the post title field. I assumed

(It was a response regarding DVDs )

Sigh, the same old story again, people saying that gas prices are higher than ever, higher than they've ever been and my god, it's all the fault of the government, the Saudis, not implementing Kyoto fast enough (Yeah, like a whole new volume of regulations will decrease prices), etc, etc, etc.

Except for the basic fact that it isn't true. Gas is not about to bankrupt us all.

(I'm going to leave out the whole issue of taxes on gas for the moment.)

I keep hearing that while gas is at its highest ever nominal price, in real terms, it is basically the same. The chart at the above link gives proof of that.

So, in real terms, we are paying about the same or less than we were 25 years ago.

Actually, it gets even better than that when you factor a few other things in.

In the last twenty five years, our real incomes have risen dramatically. So while we're paying about the same in real terms, we're paying that price out of a much bigger income. Thus, the gas we pay for is a smaller part of our total spending. Even if gas prices were to rise in real terms, they would still not take as large a portion of our earnings as they did 25 years ago.

Second, the fuel economy on cars has improved as well. Each tank of gas takes us further than the same amount of gas would have 25 years ago. Even counting for SUVs.

The only factor that goes against this trend is the increasing suburban sprawl. Many of us have to drive further than before to get to our workplaces.

Overall, while gas prices may seem like they are always increasing, in truth, we have it better than at any previous time since the OPEC price shocks of the early 70s.

Now I'll admit, the one thing about gas prices that does really p*** me off is the volatility. Driving by today, the price per litre was about $0.77. I filled up monday night for $0.635/litre. Ten to fifteen cent swings in price are not uncommon in a single week. I'd love to hear an explanation of why this is. I understand the idea of using the price to try to even out the flow of business over the week, charging higher prices at high demand points like the weekend and less on days that normally wouldn't be so busy. But would that really account for how large the swing is?

StrategyPage.com

Well, I find it disconcerting that the plastic mould melts after sustained use, but this kind of problem is easily solved. I'm glad to see that the troops are looking to get their hands on this rifle.

XM-8 Melts During Tests
April 14, 2004: The U.S. Army has asked Congress for an extra $26 million to buy 7,000 XM-8 rifles next year. These weapons would be used to equip to infantry brigades and thus give the rifle a wide scale test. The money requested would also pay for the staff needed to monitor the testing. The rifle has already undergone thousands of hours of user testing and there have been some recommendations, all minor. The buttons on the sight are to be rearranged, to make the sight easier to use. There were also complaints about battery life for the sight, and a new battery is being obtained that will boost battery life from 200 to 400 hours. A more serious problem arose when the hand guard began to melt when several hundred rounds were fired in a few minutes. It was expected that the barrel would get very hot in these situations, but the heat resistant hand guard material was thought capable of dealing with that. So now a new hand guard will be needed, with more heat shielding. This will add some weight to the weapon, which is now 6.4 pounds. The designers are trying to get the weight down to 5.7 pounds. There is a bit of competition among combat divisions to be the first to get the rifles for the 2005 test, with many officers lobbying to get one of their divisions brigades selected.

Blemont Club: Coincidences

Well, after ranting away at Al Jezeera Media for hypocrisy, I might as well rant about Western Media hypocrisy as well.

I find it strangely coincidental that three separate media sources, from three separate journalists have all produced a very similar story. Gone are the days of journalistic integrity and here are the days of journalistic fiction. I've sent off an email to Edward Greenspon, Editor-in-chief of the Globe and Mail for clarification as to whether his reporter actually lived these events and pointed out to him the other two articles of similar flavour. I don't expect a reply to my polite email, but it would be nice to know if these journalists are making up stories.

UPDATE

Well, i got a reply to my email and it turns out that the story is correct and that a group of journalists, travelling together for safety were, all kidnapped and they all reported the events from their perspective. Here's the reply to my email:

From: "Stead, Sylvia" (SStead@globeandmail.ca)
To: "MonkeyLeader"(i_h8_stupid_monkeys@hotmail.com)
Subject: RE: Questions about a story reported by one of your writers.
Date: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 10:37 PM

Sir:

Print reporters in highly dangerous places such as Iraq always travel in groups for their own safety. Orly Halpern, who is a freelance writer who works for us and several British newspapers always goes with either a Telegraph or Guardian or NYT reporter. There are a very small number of Western reporters in Iraq and they tend to stick together. You have to understand the incredible danger to these people and the risks they take in reporting the news for us. I know for a fact that Orly was with a group of reporters when she was stopped on the road and given the news coverage below, it seems it was the Telegraph and NYT (a former Globe and Mail reporter John Burns).

Sylvia Stead. Deputy Editor

I'm glad to see that journalistic integrity is alive and well. I'm also glad to hear that these reporters were released unharmed.

Documenting Al Jazeera - In Control Room, not all conspiracy theories are created equal. By Lee Smith

A very good article about the lack of journalistic standards at Al Jazeera.

The only television crew reporting from inside the besieged town, Al Jazeera crew members on Friday complained they had been fired at twice during the day.

Well, DUHH! If you are reporting the chaotic close quarters combat that is happening in Fallujah from the insurgent side of the battle, then expect to have bullets fly at you by the US coalition forces. What do you expect, that the US coalition forces will be able to tell the difference between Arab journalists and Arab insurgents? If you are standing beside an Arab insurgent, filming away as this insurgent takes pot shots at the US coalition forces, expect to have some rounds fired at your general direction.
Al Jezeera doesn't go on to tell that once they moved to safer locations in the city, they weren't "attacked".

Also, this business of Al Jezeera offices being near bombings that are "disconcertingly close to the news channel's office" is such crap.
First off, what distance is "disconcertingly close"? Give me numbers, not some vague notion. Was it 10 meters away, 100 meters, 1000 meters? I'm sure a lot of places in Fallujah have been bombed disconcertingly close. This is just a propaganda ploy by Al Jezeera to get more Arab's to believe their new source. Since Al Jezeera journalists and offices are being "targeted" by coalition forces, that MUST mean that they are reporting the true events and the US wants them to be quiet about it. Makes for a great conspiracy theory.
Secondly, since Al Jezeera is a proinsurgent news source and ally of them, this will no doubt mean that these insurgent forces will be coming to their offices with protests and rallies, in order to get their smiling jihad faces on TV, known as the Arab "Hey Mom, look I'm on TV" syndrome. It's a great propaganda source for Al Jezeera and helps fill the airwaves with more anti American propaganda. But saying that, having all of these insurgent forces locating in once area makes for a great target for the US coalition forces. So of course there is going to be bombings near Al Jezeera offices, that's a good place to hunt for insurgents.

As for the Ambulance's being shot at bit, this is just another propaganda tool by the insurgents and makes for great political propaganda of Al Jezeera followers. If the insurgents would stop using them to cart around weapons and war material and use them to move wounded people around, you wouldn't have US coalition forces shooting at them. This is a very common tactic of most radical islamics. It's happening in Iraq and it's been done and currently happening in Isreal. This type of action produces two benefits for the insurgents. First, it allows them to move war material around without the supplies being attacked. Secondly, when these supply ambulances are discovered to be transporting war goods and are shot at, it gives the insurgents a great propaganda tool to use in the media. They'll go to the liberal press crying that their peaceful efforts to move their wounded around are being hampered by the blood thirsty savages of the US coalition forces or Isreali army, who are shooting at their ambulances filled with little children.
It's very egregious tactics by the part of the insurgents and radical islamists. They've used this tactic so much that it's becoming the "Boy who cried Wolf" story.

And this type of stuff is just gold to the Al Jazeera network, who love nothing more than to show propaganda to their Arab followers.

Toronto Sun: SHOWBIZ - Monster issue for film biz

How does the Movie Picture Association of America (MPAA) know who much is being lost. Is $3 billion an estimate, because it seems that Alliance Atlantis Motion Picture Group can't figure out what the damage is because the DVD market hasn't stabilized.
What makes DVD piracy any different than video renting or what the Canadian Supreme Court ruling was on the music industries copyright case? Surely, video rental stores aren't making huge profits for the movie industry? And if the latest Harvard research on the impact of music sales caused by the current use of internet downloading is any indication, then it can't be causing too much of a problem.

Besides, regular DVD sales are soaring. They are turning huge profits for the movie industry, that weren't there 10 to 15 years ago. This is just another area to make profit from a film. In the past, the only way to make a profit on a film was in the box office, not in personal entertainment sales. So, every DVD sold is a added bonus to the collective cash flow of a movie project.

The are many other reasons why the movie industry isn't making huge profits, that all can't be blamed on internet piracy.

1) Does it really take two actors, each being paid $20 million US each to get people in the seats of a movie theater? The salaries of these artists are just going out of proportion to what they should be making. The movie Producers need to really think hard about whether they should be making movies where 30 or 40 % of their budget goes to a couple of cast members (or cast members and directors, depending on if a big name director is involved). It's a big gamble to pay out that kind of money, when there always a potential that the movie could bomb (ie. Gigli). Also, it's hard to turn a profit on a film when the cost of making a film keeps sky rocketing.

2) What kind of product is being made for the audience? Taking for example the Hulk, which was used as an example in the article. It was a complete bore and wasn't worth the money spent on the movie ticket. Producers and directors think that slapping a familiar name (ie. the Hulk) on the film with a bunch of flashy special effects will draw in the audience. Well, I'm sorry to disappoint, but it's not. The special effects on the Hulk were terrible, the dialogue boring, and overall, it just wasn't a good movie. The producers of the Hulk should have been happy that their product got released early, because it gave them a chance to fix the problems that people were complaining about (which the obviously didn't). Also, look at Star Wars Episode One. It was supposed to blow Titanic out of the water in box office sales. But, it didn't do the huge numbers that were expected. Why? Because, for the non Star Wars fans, it was a pretty average film, with a lot of boring aspects (Jar Jar, Pod Racing was way to long, Anakin was sort of annoying) that really wouldn't have sold well to a general audience, if it wasn't for the fact that it was a "Star Wars" movie. Look at the movie Gigli. It was a crap film, but the producers where trying to catch the wave of Bennifer (Ben Affleck and Jen Lopez) in the hopes that they could sell the movie. Well, guess what? They couldn't because the movie was just too bad, no matter who stared in it.

3) Also, the price of movie tickets can be blamed for the drop in profits. With the average outing to a movie theater in Canada, based on 2 people, costing between $25 and $50 dollars (depending if snacks are bought or not), a lot of people now are being more thrifty about their movie attendance. People can't afford to go and see each new movie that comes out, so they'll only see the ones that either appeal to them or get critical acclaim. With today's economic stresses (higher taxes, uncertain futures, higher day to day living costs), the entertainment industry is usually the first part of the family budget that get removed. People won't cut their food budget, because they need to eat, but the entertainment budget is much easier to cut because it isn't a life necessity.

4) Movie distribution patterns world wide can be blamed. When the biggest areas of illegal DVD distribution occur in the region of the world that gets most movies distributed to it last, I can see where people living in that area would rather acquire the illegal DVD, then wait a year to see a movie that the rest of the world is talking about, in their local theaters. Also, in some cases, the illegal DVD is much sought after than watching the movie when it comes out in the theater. Why you might ask? Because of government censoring. In Kuwait, an islamic country, any sexual reference (including kissing, suggestive touching, or bare skin) is cut from a film because of the high moralistic standards of their society. So, if the film makers are worried about the loss of artistic creation, then they should be thankful that you can go onto the street (sometimes outside the movie theaters themselves) and purchase an illegal DVD copy of the film in it's uncut entirety. Just as a note, I watched the Matrix Reload in Kuwait and found out later that about 25 minutes of the movie was cut from it, including huge portions of the "Cave Dance".

Personally, I think illegal DVD's just aren't worth the material they are stamped on. I've bought illegal copies of DVD's in Kuwait of new block buster movies that were released in North America. Why you might ask? Well, I was interested in seeing the movie that all of my friends back at home were raving about. I knew, once the film got released in Kuwait (which is about 2 or 3 months later than the release date in North America) that Kuwait's censors would cut the movie so badly, that it would be hard to follow the plot. But, saying that, of all the illegal DVD's I've bought here in Kuwait, I've bought the legal version back home when I was there on vacation. Not because I felt bad for the movie companies, but because the illegal DVD's sold world wide are just very bad quality. They are grainy, the colour sucks, and the sound is crap. Sometimes the illegal DVD's wouldn't work in the player or they would only work in certain players (like laptops or computer DVD roms). And of the good quality (picture and sound quality that is) illegal DVD's that I've bought, which accounts for roughly 15% of all the illegal DVD's I've bought, non of the extra feature worked on them and all of them had a pause somewhere in the latter third of the movie. So, overall, I'd rather spend the extra 10 or 15 dollars and just get the much better quality legal DVD.

Unlike the music industry, where it's relatively simple for the lay person to create downloadable music files of relative small byte sizes where it's convenient for downloading and creation of their own CD music discs, the movie industry does have an edge against illegal copies of their movies. For starters, DVD quality digital files are extremely enormous, which requires both high bandwidth for transfer and a lot of time for downloading. These 2 reasons alone will cause only the most diehard fan to seek these files. The average person does not have the patients or the internet speed to wait for a movie download to take place. This is good for the movie industry because it limits the damage of illegal DVD's to a narrow window, which is the sale of illegal DVD discs. Since these discs are manufactured by companies, there are two things that can be done to prevent them from being copied illegally.

Firstly, to prevent a movie from leaking early onto the internet and onto illegal DVD's, the movie industry has to control who has access to their product. This is an internal issue for them and thus is an internal problem. If they can't control their own "house", then they are the only ones to blame. This means that they have to police employees who steal the movie, or subcontracted film processing companies (or employees) stealing the movie, or the loss of Critic discs (the discs that are sent to movie critics to review) by improper disc handling. Who in their right mind would leave an unattended package outside someone's residence? You are inviting problems when you allow things like this to occur. As a note, I've watched an illegal DVD version of Kill Bill vol 1 here in Kuwait. It was a critic issue DVD, with all of the warnings of not to sell or lend the disc, for viewing only by critics and that it was the property of the film company. Well, obviously someone got their hands on this thing (either the Critic was careless with the disposal of the disc or it was stolen), but I did like a feature that was placed on the disc that made it annoying to watch and should be put on other critic discs to prevent them from becoming illegally distributed. During the film, beside the huge letters stating "Property of such and such", the movie stopped every 15 minutes and then restarted with the 4, 3, 2, 1 count down. The movie was pretty good (thanks Tarintino) but having to watch it with the constant interruptions just made the viewing of the DVD hard.

Secondly, with the current age of encryption technology, certainly something can be done to the disc that would prevent it from being copied. Like, a DVD machine readable code on the disc or a code that needs to be entered before the disc can be played. This is where the different aspects of the movie industry, (movie studios, movie distributors, DVD and DVD player manufactures) need to get together and flesh out a corporate wide security system so that all DVD's can be played on all DVD players, but are encrypted using the same technology. Unfortunately, the current corporate territorial boundaries are preventing it. But, with the corporate standards over other lucrative technologies like USB and Bluetooth, perhaps in the near future, this will change.

Vietnam? - Why the analogy doesn't hold water.� By Christopher�Hitchens

A very good article by Chirstopher Hitchens at Slate.com.

Vietnam?
Why the analogy doesn't hold water.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, April 12, 2004, at 12:53 PM PT



Here is how the imperialist plot in Iraq was proceeding until recently. The Shiite Muslim pilgrimages to Najaf and Karbala and the Sunni pilgrimages to Mecca and Medina had been recommenced after a state ban that had lasted for years and been enforced in blood. A new dinar had been minted, without the face of the dictator, and was on its way to becoming convertible. (Indeed, recent heists at the Beirut and Baghdad airports suggested that the Iraqi currency was at last worth stealing.) The deliberately parched and scorched wetlands of the south were being re-flooded. At the end of June, the American headquarters was to be converted into an embassy. At that point, almost $100 billion was to become available for the reconstitution of the Iraqi state and society. By the end of the year, campaigning would be under way for the first open election in Iraqi memory, and the only such election in the region (unless you count Israel).

There are those—not conspicuous for their bravery under a less indulgent regime—who would prefer not to give this process a chance to breathe. For them, it is nobler to take hostages and dismember prisoners and to conceal explosives in the bodies of dead dogs. When confronted with those who were brave under the previous regime, they tend to back away. (I don't see Muqtada Sadr taking on the Kurdish peshmerga any time soon, and I'd be fascinated to see what happened if he did. He has said that "Kurdistan is the enemy of God.")

Of what does this confrontation remind you? Why, of Vietnam, says Sen. Edward Kennedy. No, more like Lebanon in 1982, says the New York Times. The usually admirable Colbert King, in the Washington Post, asking how we got ourselves into this, compares pro-American Iraqis to the Uncle Toms on whom liberal opinion used to rely for advice about the black ghetto. And Thomas Friedman, never more than an inch away from a liberal panic of his own, has decided that it is Kurdish arrogance—in asking to keep what they already have—that has provoked theocratic incendiarism.

If the United States were the nation that its enemies think it is, it could quite well afford to Balkanize Iraq, let the various factions take a chunk each, and make a divide-and-rule bargain with the rump. The effort continues, though, to try and create something that is simultaneously federal and democratic. Short of that, if one absolutely has to fall short, the effort must continue to deny Iraq to demagogues and murderers and charlatans. I can't see how this compares to the attempt to partition and subjugate Vietnam, bomb its cities, drench its forests in Agent Orange, and hand over its southern region to a succession of brutal military proxies. For one thing, Vietnam even at its most Stalinist never invaded and occupied neighboring countries (or not until it took on the Khmer Rouge), never employed weapons of genocide inside or outside its own borders, and never sponsored gangs of roving nihilist terrorists. If not all its best nationalists were Communists, all its best Communists were nationalists, and their combination of regular and irregular forces had beaten the Japanese and French empires long before the United States even set foot in the country, let alone before the other Kennedy brothers started assassinating the very puppets they had installed there.

As for Lebanon: Gen. Sharon in 1982 set out to "solve" the Palestinian problem by installing a fascist-minded Phalange Party, itself a minority of the Christian minority, in Beirut. (To watch American policy in Iraq, you would never even know that there was a 6 percent Christian minority there.) And Sharon invaded a country that already had a large population of Palestinian refugees, a country that had committed no offense against international law except to shelter those Palestinians—against their will and that of Lebanon—to begin with.

Colbert King is actually nearer the mark than he knows. Those Arab Iraqis who take a pro-American line do have a tendency to be secular, educated, and multicultural. They also, often, have had to spend time in exile (as 4 million Iraqis have been compelled to do), and many of them have barely had time to come home and start over. Then there is a potential majority, according even to the most depressing opinion polls, who want to be given time to think. The above qualifications don't apply so much to Iraqi Kurdistan, which did its own fighting and doesn't suffer so much from that elusive feeling of "humiliation," and where the "street" is pro-American. This does force us to face the fact that there is no pro-Western militia, with ready-made slogans of religion and nationalism and "martyrdom" and Kalashnikovs to spare. And facing that fact means asking whether we will abandon the nascent Iraqi civil society to those who do have those things.

The scenes in Fallujah and Kut and elsewhere are prefigurations of what a transfer of power would have looked like, unedited, in the absence of coalition forces. This is the Iraq that had been prepared for us by more than a decade of sanctions-plus-Saddam, with a new lumpen class of impoverished, disenfranchised, and paranoid people, with bullying, Khomeini-style, Wahhabi-style and Baath-style forces to compete for their loyalty. Such was the future we faced anyway. This is implicitly admitted by those antiwar forces who asked, "Why not Zimbabwe?" or, "Why not Rwanda?"

I could give a list of mistakes that I think the Bremer administration has made, but none that would have justified theocratic barbarism. I don't feel I should give free advice to officers in the field, but if the locations seized by Sadr or his Sunni counterparts had been left to their own devices for a few days, there is some reason to think that the local population would have gotten a glimpse of that future and rejected it. A few days rule by the inflamed Party of God. … Or what about a quarter-century of it, as the Iranian people have just had to endure?

Here is the reason that it is idle to make half-baked comparisons to Vietnam. The Vietnamese were not our enemy, let alone the enemy of the whole civilized world, whereas the forces of jihad are our enemy and the enemy of civilization. There were some Vietnamese, even after the whole ghastly business, who were sorry to see the Americans leave. There were no Lebanese who were sad to see the Israelis leave. There would be many, many Iraqis who would be devastated in more than one way if there was another Somalian scuttle in their country. In any case, there never was any question of allowing a nation of this importance to become the property of Clockwork Orange holy warriors.



Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and a regular contributor to Slate. His most recent book is A Long Short War: The Postponed Liberation of Iraq.

Photograph on Slate's Table of Contents of scene in Abu Gharib by Karim Sahib/AFP.

Let's Hear it for Tyranny

You know, if the Iraqi's were smart (insurgents and non insurgents), they'd stop fighting the Americans and let them finish their rebuilding of Iraq. Why you might ask? Because the more they fight the Americans, the longer it will take for the Americans to leave, which is the ultimate goal what these insurgents want. If the insurgents want to see the US leave Iraqi soil, then let the Americans do what they came to do, so that they will leave, secure in the knowledge that they left behind a country that won't try to send radical fundimentalists against them, who will cause terrorist attacks against US interests.
Ohhh.. wait a minute. I just figured it out. The insurgents don't want that to happen do they. They want the US to fail, so that Iraq will become a breeding ground for terrorists, in order to blow the "Great Satan" off of this planet. Oh, how foolish of me. It's not the presence of the Americans that frighten the insurgents, it's the ideals and freedoms that the Americans represent that they fear.

Well, i hope to hell that the Americans succeed in Iraq, to help reduce the terrorist threat around the world. Inshallah.

April 12, 2004: Many Iraqis are angry that American troops are fighting back at Sunni and Shia gangs that have been killing and terrorizing Iraqis and foreigners. The Iraqis demand that some other, less violent, way be found to deal with the Iraqi thugs. In the past, the only Iraqi solution to dealing with these thugs was to submit to them, an approach which led to tyrants like Saddam Hussein. Bad habits are hard to break. Many Europeans are angry as well. But these are the people who have brought us Adolph Hitler, Joe Stalin, Francisco Franco, Benito Mussolini (and many others), in the last few generations. So they know a lot about how to nurture tyranny, and want America to learn from the European experience. In fact many Arab nations are criticizing the treatment of Iraqi terrorists and murderers. None of the Arab nations has a functioning democracy, all are ruled by men who exercise power through force. So opposing the treatment of the murderers in Fallujah, and Sadrs thugs in the south, can be seen as professional courtesy between Arabs. The mass media, by and large, reports all this with a straight face.

The ceasefire in Fallujah, to facilitate negotiations between tribal elders and gunmen, is holding. Arab doctors say that over 600 Iraqis have died in Fallujah, and that most of them have been women and children. The doctors are almost certainly lying, as Arab, and especially Iraqi, officials have consistently lied in situations like this. The marines are operating under rules of engagement that avoided civilian casualties, although some did occur. The Iraqi gunmen would try to protect themselves by firing from among unarmed civilians. This did not always work. Most of the dead in Fallujah are armed men caught shooting at marines or Iraqis.

Two of the three battalions of the new Iraqi army was brought in to perform security in parts of Fallujah where the gunmen had been cleared out. One of those battalions refused to enter the city. Some of the troops said they "would not fight Iraqis." This was described as a "command failure," meaning that the Iraqi officers were not up to the task of leading and motivating their troops. This has long been a problem with Iraqi troops and it is recognized that selecting and training competent Iraqi officers will be a major task.

Marines continue to fight Sunni Arab gunmen in other parts of the Sunni Triangle west of Baghdad, while army and coalition troops fight Sadr gunmen in the south.

Official and traditional Iraqi leader continue negotiations to end the fighting. The gangs of Iraqi gunmen are getting cut to pieces by American troops, but the images of the fighting shown on the Arab media, and broadcast back to Iraq, reflects poorly on the Iraqi leadership. There has been an "understanding" that if the Iraqi leaders prevented large scale opposition, the coalition would flood the country with Iraqi police and security troops and pour in money, foreign aid workers to rebuild the country after three decades of Baath Party plundering and mismanagement, hold elections and leave. The current violence by Baath Party and Shia radical gangs represents the failure of Iraqis to even tolerate the rebuilding of their own country, and reflects poorly on the traditional Iraqi leadership. While many Iraqis complain that the country has not been rebuilt in a few months or a year, most Iraqi leaders know better, and know that there have been progress month by month. And that if Iraq is allowed to fall back into it's traditional cycle of armed gangs fighting for power, all will be lost. This does not play well, or at all, in the media, but it is the sort of illusions you have to deal with in Iraq.

CNEWS - World: Stampede at celebration kills 21

Toronto Sun: NEWS - Ferry site dogs' delight

"This is the only place in this city where you can bring a big dog because nobody else wants to come here. It's all toxic waste," said Smith, at the beach with Moose, her Great Dane.
site.

Lady, you must really love your dog then, if you bring it to a toxic waste area so that it can run "free".

Lets be honest here, you are pissed off that your huge dog (who shouldn't be living in a city to begin with) can no longer run "free" in the terminal area, so you'll have to find some other place for your mini horse to run around at.

I've been to the Cherry beach area, it does have an industrial aspect to it, but it also has some nice green areas to visit.

If you are so upset about lossing the place where you dogs can run off-leash, then write to your local councilor (because god knows they aren't busy) to have them create leash-free parks for your animals.

Toronto Sun: NEWS - Poll punches NHL fighters

I'd like to know how 43% of a population can be classified as "most people"? As far as i can tell, based on grade school level math, but 43% of a population isn't even a majority. If the poll found that more than half, say 51%, of the people wanted hockey fighting banned, even then i'd still not consider it "most people". Let's be honest, if you get over three quarters of the population saying they'd want hockey fighting banned, then i'd agree that "most people" would want it banned.

Whether you are for or against hockey fighting (i'm for it, in case you were wondering), i'm strictly saying that you have to seriously look at any statistics that are presented to you. You have to look at how the data was collected, from whom it was collected from, where it was collected, plus a whole host of other factors to eliminate bias or false reporting.

So, next time some facts are thrown at you, take a minute to figure out what is actually being reported to you.

As for why i'm for fighting in hockey:
1) prevents other serious injuries because players know that their actions could be called to task, by having a heavy enforcer pound some sense into you.
2) provides entertainment. Yes, fighting is entertaining. That's why Boxing is still popular.
3) gives a frustration release point to the team. If a team is lossing and becomes frustrated with their opponent, it's better to have one fight, then 20 slashes, spearing, or high sticking calls.
4) provides a boost to the team and to the fans. Fans pay good hard earned money for pricey tickets. If they have to watch their team loss 6 to 0, a fight will at least give them something for their money.

I like how the recording industry is cry that they've lost money from last year. Well, could it possibly be that your artists were just bland and unentertaining, your product that was marketed was shit, that the consumer is sick of the monotonous boy bands and pop tarts being pushed at us? No, it has to be the evil p2p swapping. Well, I guess a little Harvard research has debunked that myth. FILE SHARING Researchers at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina released a study this week that found high-selling albums actually benefit from file sharing. It also found music downloads have an effect on record sales "statistically indistinguishable from zero."

Also, where is the drop in price for the CD product? It's not as if the CDs I bought when they were first offered as a medium device, those many years ago, are substantially different from the ones I buy today. But, despite 14 years of economies of scale and improved technology, the cost remains basically the same.

Cd's are a medium that's easily produced now, easy to handle and easy to record on in mass quantities. Plus, each CD costs the music industry just pennies in cost. So, where is the other $19.80 in cost going?
Hell, even DVD movies have dropped in price over the years, from around $40 a DVD to around $20. I guess what the music industry is saying is that a DVD movie is the same price as a cd album.

The music industry is not making any fans with their tactics, in fact, it could be counter productive if they keep going on like this. They definitely need a boost in logic, so that they will open their eyes to what new technology can offer to music fans. Hell, I was online the other day were looking for ways to download music legally, yet there are no suppliers of digital downloadable music in Canada. If you try to order from the Wal-Mart or Apple, you have to be a US resident.
Well, nice going Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA). A big thumbs up to providing a service that Canadians want and are using, though in an illegal manner. If I was a record executive, I'd have to be thinking, "hmmmm.. people are using the internet to download our music illegally, so, instead of hunting down this people like nazi jackboots, why don't we as an industry create a internet website where people can legally download music at an affordable price, like what's available from the US. That way we will continue to make music, make money and offer our product in a way that's convenient to consumer demands."


Toronto Sun:

SHOWBIZ - The lowdown on music downloads

The lowdown on music downloads

Mary Dickie: While Major Record Labels Cry Theft, Some Artists are Smiling About the Net Effect
By MARY DICKIE, TORONTO SUN

Revolution is afoot in the music industry, as the battle over downloading rages. In one corner are the major labels, seeking to protect their investment in their artists. In the other are file-sharers, flying the flag of free cultural exchange.

Rulings in Canada in recent weeks haven't made the issue any clearer. They've only ramped up the debate.

Caught in the middle are artists, songwriters, remixers and music fans, unsure where the line between financial control and creative freedom should be drawn.

Certainly, the record companies -- suffering from lower sales, accused of greed and short-sightedness, panicked by downloading, and outsmarted by 14-year-olds -- are feeling the heat. Their attempts to stop downloading include everything from feel-good 'music-is-worth-it' campaigns to lawsuits filed against children, all of which have only damaged their image.

The Internet nation -- built on free exchange and the rejection of corporate control -- is united against Big Music, and few people feel sympathetic about a little belt-tightening in an industry that's been flying high for decades.

But recent events have shaken the foundation of the argument that file-sharing is wrong and raised the question: Is downloading really theft?

There used to be a tacit understanding that online music trading was morally questionable, despite the surcharge Canadians pay on blank CDs, tapes and MP3 players to compensate artists.

'DEVASTATING'

But times change. In December, the Copyright Board of Canada ruled that in its eyes at least, downloading music for personal use is not illegal. Next, an American study found that music downloading has had a minimal impact on CD sales.

Then, just two weeks ago, a Federal Court judge ruled that Internet service providers cannot be forced to reveal their subscribers' identities, blocking an attempt by the Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA) to sue music file-sharers. The judge also found insufficient evidence that file sharers are infringing Canadian copyright law.

On Juno Awards weekend, Heritage Minister Helene Scherrer calmed industry outrage by promising to change copyright laws, and CRIA reps vowed to appeal.

But the bottom line of all this remains: As of today, Canadian courts have not yet ruled on the legality of downloading.

"Music downloading is devastating our industry," CRIA lawyer Richard Pfohl says.

"It's the equivalent of looting. We've had sales drop by $425 million per year since 1999. We'll continue to fight to protect rights holders on the Internet."

But while CRIA says it is fighting on behalf of artists, some artists believe it's really protecting the record labels.

"I take offence when someone acting in my interest is suing my fans and calling them criminals," singer Danko Jones says.

"If someone downloads our songs, chances are they'll tell their friends about us. Plus they might come to our show, and we make more from that, anyway. For every record sold, the band only gets a buck or two, so what's the big deal?"

"The labels always made more money off the product," agrees electronic musician John B., who allows his work to be downloaded, as long as it's not for profit. "That's why they're upset about downloading. Artists have always had to tour and sell merchandise to make money."

Others see downloading as a way for people to hear new music at a time when radio no longer serves that purpose.

"The hardest thing for an independent artist is to get people to hear your music," singer/songwriter Jim Clements says. "When people can download my songs, I'm going to sell more records than I would if they weren't able to hear them at all.

"The labels don't understand what a great tool the Internet is. I've bought more albums since I've had Internet access than ever before. I'll read an article on a band, download a song and, if I like it, I'll buy with confidence."

Of course, some artists are against downloading -- most famously Metallica. But Jones calls them to task for that.

"I've got their demo," he says. "It was circulated to thousands of people, and that underground swelling got them their deal -- the free exchange of music.

"For them to go back on that is hypocritical, and they've lost fans over it."

While file-sharing technology zoomed along, the industry was slow in responding with pay-per-song sites. The success of iTunes and puretracks proves that people will pay for music online -- but iTunes is not available in Canada, and puretracks is for Windows only and has a limited selection.

"The music industry has been the absolute last entrant into the marketplace," Internet lawyer Zak Muscovitch says.

"They ignored all the signs that CDs are dying, and really unwillingly entered into this new technological environment. And they can only blame themselves. There was no alternative for such a long time in terms of a pay-per-use system.

"I think people will appreciate a pay-per-use model if it's cheap and has a wide enough selection. But the industry consistently refused to deal with Napster and KaZaa when they were trying to negotiate royalty payments."

"It takes longer to do things right," CRIA's Pfohl says in defence. "It's easier to loot a store than start up a store."

Neil Leyton, a musician who operates a small label, Fading Ways, agrees that the major labels are responsible for their woes. "They've built such high marketing costs to meet unrealistic sales projections," he says. "When they're not met, they need a scapegoat, and they're pointing at the consumer. It's pathological -- they're alienating their own customers."

Another problem is that, unlike the art world -- and despite years of hip-hop sampling -- the music industry has no idea how to deal with one artist using another's work to make something new. Recently, a (previously) little-known DJ named Danger Mouse combined rap star Jay-Z's a cappella version of his hit Black Album -- released for the use of remixers -- with chopped-up sounds from The Beatles' White Album to create a new work, The Grey Album.

But EMI, the Beatles' label, was not impressed and forced Danger Mouse to halt its sales.

A grassroots protest erupted, and on Feb. 24 -- Grey Tuesday -- hundreds of sites offered The Grey Album for download. If they had been sales, it would be a hit, and EMI could have profited from the Beatles' making inroads into the hip-hop nation. But they lost the opportunity.

"That was insane -- Danger Mouse did no harm," says John B. "He probably contributed to both original albums' sales.

"Mainstream music has lagged behind in understanding sampling and recontextualizing," he adds. "It's been done in experimental music, and it's what hip-hop was founded on. But when it reaches a larger audience, people start trying to control it. And they can't. There's so much opposition, and the people opposing them are so far ahead, technologically."

'BUILDS ON IT'

Indeed, with downloading so ingrained in the culture, the industry would be wise to get with the program. Leyton has enrolled his acts in a licensing scheme called Creative Commons, which allows free downloading of music as long as the downloader doesn't profit.

"It's a way for artists to share each other's work without breaking the law," he says. "It doesn't remove copyright; it builds on it."

Danko Jones says that labels have to make CDs more attractive. "A booklet, a DVD, a link to another site -- something exciting for the fan. Look at Einsturzende Neubaten -- go to neubaten.org and see the future of music right there. You pay to graduate from a fan to a supporter, and you have direct contact with the band while they're making the album."

Another option is to think of bands as performers who put out recorded music purely to support the main enterprise.

"Records are our passport to playing live," Jones says.

"Soon we'll just have good performers. It's a good way to weed out the bands created in the boardroom."

Muscovitch agrees. "The Grateful Dead are one of the biggest bands in history," he says.

"They allowed people to record their shows and freely distribute them, and made their money by touring. It may be that actually playing live is what will keep the music industry vibrant."

The industry is clearly in transition, but opportunities exist for those who see music as more than a piece of plastic.

"In the publishing industry, it's understood that every book is read by 2.4 people," Leyton says.

"The record industry's position that each CD can only be heard by one person is unrealistic. Music is part of our common cultural experience, it's in the air. The thinking needs to change."

I got my first "Phishing" scam email today, asking me to go to a link supplied in the email and type in my account and PIN number, in order to verify my email address.

Hey, this might have worked if:
1) I had a Citibank account
2) I was a brain dead idiot who doesn't know about this scam yet, which has been broadcast all over the news and internet.
3) believed that my bank would require such information, yet on their website they state that they'd never ask for such information this way
4) didn't notice that the email was originally sent from the hotmail system.
5) I hadn't received 4 emails that were all sent at the same time.

I went to the real citibank website and funny enough, there was a link at the first page to report an email scam. I guess it's becoming so common now, that banks have seen the need for such a thing. It was a pretty painless process to send the details of the scam to their security section.

BTW, All Scammers Should be Shot!

Dalton McGuinty has to big the biggest fibber of them all. If he were Pinocchio, his nose would have grown from here to the moon by now.
I'm sick of having our elected officials and political leaders lying to the people who pay their salaries.
It's time for a revolt. Click the link on the right to go to the Canadian Federation of Taxpayers website and sign the petition.
If this doesn't work, it might be time to impeach Premier Flip Flop McFly's ass and boot him and his Fiberals out the door.

Mid-Season TV Casualties Show the future of TV.

I'm really sick of TV executives canceling shows before they've had a chance to develop. They put so much effort, money and resources into making a new show, why don't they keep it around for at least a year so that the stories and characters can progress and to give the show a chance to have a following. They can't really expect a show to take off right away. Not only that, they need to fill their timeslots with something, it's better then reruns of Friends, ER and the Simpsons.
With most shows now running only 12 to 15 new episodes a year, there is at minimum of 37 weeks of TV left to fill. This is a perfect time to run new shows in the time slots of already established hits, because you know that your audience will be available at that timeslot anyways. I get annoyed and tired of trying to figure out if ER is a rerun this week or if it's a new show. The vast majority of the time it's a rerun, considering that new ER episodes account for only 25% of the total years showing of that program and the vast majority of new episodes are mostly shown during sweeps week (another annoyance of mine). Why not alternate TV shows in these time slots. One week, show a new episode of a popular TV program, like ER, then the following week, show a new episode of a new product that the network is trying to develop. Over the course of the year, you'll have presented new shows 60% of the time for that time slot, causing viewers to stay with your channel and programs, because they can be guaranteed a new show most of the time in that timeslot, which will allow for more advertisement dollars to generated because the ratings will be high for the timeslot.

Fox has got to be the worst offender for canceling new programs. They've cancelled two shows that I watched and loved; Firefly and Space: Above and Beyond. Now, Sci-Fi shows don't normally do well on TV, but these shows had great potential and a strong fan base. Not only that, but they were shown in the death beds of TV timeslots, Friday 8pm for Firefly and Sunday 7pm for Space: AAB. I think tv executives have strong biases to the shows that get aired on their networks, and if there is no support from the higher echelons, then you can forget about the show succeeding, no matter what time slot it fills.

The tv executive logic of, If a show doesn't capture 10% of the market on it's debut, it's not doing well, is such Bullshit. First, you have to capture viewers from other shows in order to get a following. Viewers who already have a favorite show in the time slot that the new show debuts need a chance to find the new show, either by debuting the new show during reruns of the viewers popular shows or by promoting the show to death, to get the viewers aware of this new show.
Secondly, you need a chance for the story and characters to flesh themselves out, so that they become interesting and captivating enough for views to switch to them.
Third, you have to maintain the show in its debuted timeslot, in order for viewers to know where they can find it. You can usually tell when a show’s about to get canned when you see it being flung around the timeslots carelessly and without advertisements to let the viewers know that it's moving.

Problems for the future.
1) TV writers and producers will not produce unique products because they will have fears that the hard work that they've put into their projects, projects that they've slaved over, will get cancelled within the first 5 shows. This will leave the TV airwaves filled with cookie cutter programs, with rehashed and recycled plots and storylines.
2) Viewers will be very hesitant to commit to a new show, because of the current canceling environment that is now prevalent, which will continue the problem of new shows getting cancelled.
3) Eventually, people are going to get sick of reality programs, which are now being flooded on mass to the TV viewer. The Bachelor 99, Survivor 86, American Idol 23. With these shows becoming more formulaic, people are going to get disinterested. Many people have their own reality problems to deal with, so they aren't going to tune in to watch someone else’s problems. The problem is, once the downfall of reality TV happens, there will be substitute for the viewer to grab hold of, because most of the fictional shows will have been replaced by reality tv.

Perhaps new shows are best debuted on cable networks, like Showtime and HBO. With the success of The Sopranos, Curb your Enthusiasm, The Larry Sanders Show, Sex in the City and The Office, these shows have had time to be nurtured and developed. Cable networks seem more patient with their shows, allowing for the audience to get hooked into their series. Perhaps it's because the cable networks don't rely solely on advertising dollars to make profits. Since cable networks have to be subscribed to, they have to produce and offer quality shows that will attract people to pay for the subscription. Perhaps its best to create new shows on cable networks, let them progress to their series finales, then sell off the rights to the regular networks, like what happened at CTV with the Sopranos.

The Fallacy of Sweeps Week/Month.
This has got to be the biggest scam job I've ever seen. How can you base your advertisement rates for your timeslots (a.k.a TV programs) based on what is presented by your network during these Sweep periods? I understand that viewership totals, from Nielson ratings, are used to determine how popular a show is, but when the episodes of those shows are specifically geared to attract viewers during sweeps periods with special guests, special cliff hangers, and/or special events, it's like false advertisement of your show's product.
It doesn't do the viewer or your advertisers any good if your tv show "dresses itself up and shines it's boots" once every 3 months to showcase what it could be, when, during none sweeps periods, your show is crap or the timeslot is filled with reruns of that show. Advertisers should wake up to the fact that 70% of the time, the shows that they are advertising their product on, are mostly reruns. And reruns don't attract viewers, they force viewers to find something they haven't seen before (i.e. "the other guys programs").

msnbc.msn.com
BBC
freerepublic.com

Lt. Col. Brennan Byrne
I'm not American, but this guy has to be considered for the Presidency. He should at least get an honesty award, for being the only Commander willing to say what he thinks and to say it how it is.

Some choice Quotes:

"The prospect of some city father walking in and making 'Joe Jihadi' give himself up are pretty slim,"
"What is coming is the destruction of anti-coalition forces in Fallujah ... they have two choices: Submit or die."

On the bombing of the Insurgent Mosque (April 07, 2004), "We wanted to kill the people inside,"

"If they use the mosque as a military machine, then it's no longer a house of worship and we strike,"

Good Hunting Colonel.