Right Wing Nut House

I never liked Starbucks that much.

As a coffee lover and something of an aficionado of the bean, I confess to being extraordinarily snooty about my drink of choice. And since I imbibe approximately 18-24 cups of the nectar every day, my snootiness knows no bounds.

Give me the sweet, even delight of real Kona (excellent at midday) from Kona Premium or the dark, rich, winey pop of true Columbian (late afternoon or dinner) from 8 O’Clock.

Arabians vary enormously but I actually like the smoky, slightly bitter bouquet found in Ethiopian (anytime coffee). And for breakfast, a blended coffee is usually the best. I have been drinking Stewarts coffee for more than 30 years. A Chicago company, for many years they only sold their coffee retail at the great Chicago grocer Jewel Food Stores. To this day, much of their trade is with finer restaurants.

I can drink coffee when it’s 100 degrees out. I can drink coffee 10 minutes before I go to bed. I can drink coffee anytime, anywhere, for any reason. What I can’t do is drink coffee with anything in it. Absolute, total, stone cold black coffee for me or nothing. And it must be hot. Lukewarm coffee is for women, children, and Frenchmen.

But oh, how I love the taste. Good coffee does more than wake the mind and soothe the soul. Think of the social history of coffee and you have the history of civilization. From the Arabs (who insist on boiling the drink) to the Europeans (who abuse the bean shamefully) to America (where it achieved its egalitarian social status), coffee has told the story of civilized man.

Until Starbucks opened. Starbucks is the anti-coffee. It’s obsessive and relentless image making, trying to vulgarize the bean by branding it like some woe begotten Hereford calf, is one of the minor annoyances impressed upon America by socially conscious corporate Gen-Xers in the early 21st century. Like Ikea, it is not so much what it sells as much as how it makes you feel using the product.

If this be the future of capitalism, gag me.

The Starbucks House bean is better than some, not as good as many, and vastly inferior to the best. It’s quality is uneven with some beans I’ve used tasting as if it had been left in the sun for a year while others leaving the impression that the fella in charge of roasting the bean had a rough night before coming into work and fell asleep at the switch.

But it is a serviceable brew and does nicely in a pinch. “Any coffee is better than no coffee at all” is my motto, having been forced by economic circumstances when I was younger to do with brands like Folgers and Maxwell House - convinced that much of what was contained in those cans was swept from the floor of the coffee warehouse.

Which brings me (after our fun little digression) to this story about what else you can get at Starbucks:

Current and former employees of the gourmet coffee chain filed a federal complaint yesterday claiming their corporate bosses have refused to heed repeated warnings about inadequate training and chronic infestations of roaches, rats and other vermin in New York stores.

But the company strongly denied the allegations, noting the complaints were coordinated by a handful of activists who are trying to unionize the chain’s normally merry band of baristas.

[snip]

“I constantly have to deal with mice, cockroaches and fruit flies all over the place,” said Tomer Malchi, 24, who works at the Union Square store. “The root of the problem is that we’re never staffed properly to clean the place right and we never have the right equipment to clean the stores.”

Starbucks, which has refused to recognize the union, brushed off the allegations as “the latest tactic in an aggressive campaign against Starbucks and our partners that is designed to damage the credibility and good name of the company” by a “very small number” of current and former employees.

In defense of the employees, I know how extraordinarily difficult it is to keep a place that sells and stores food clean. In defense of the company, I can tell you that the there is plenty of time and people to clean up when the day is done. Smart managers direct their employees to clean constantly, each shift being responsible for certain “hard” cleaning tasks like the dispensers or condiment trays while everyone pitches in with cleaning the surfaces on a constant basis. Floors and prep surfaces are where the bugs live and prosper and these should be done at least twice a day.

But when you’re paid barely above minimum wage and don’t necessarily want to make wearing that silly uniform your life’s legacy, lots of things slip through the cracks. And if the company doesn’t have an exterminator coming in on a monthly (or even weekly basis) then they deserve every bad word of publicity they get out of this.

I don’t know, though. Perhaps it will enhance the image of the company with the “organics” crowd. Can’t get much more natural than rat hair in your Caramel Macchiato .

Is Nasrallah about to pull Prime Minister Olmert’s chestnuts from the fire? Or is he angling to bring down the Lebanese government?

If this report in the J-Post is true, Nasrallah may be making a huge mistake:

A critical Lebanese Cabinet meeting set for Sunday to discuss implementation of the cease-fire between Israel and Hizbullah was postponed, a move that was likely to delay the dispatch of the Lebanese army to the south and an end of the fighting.

A top aide to Prime Minister Fuad Saniora said the meeting had been indefinitely postponed but would give no reason. Published reports said the Cabinet, which approved the cease-fire unanimously Saturday night, had been sharply divided over demands in the cease-fire agreement that Hizbullah surrender its weapons in south Lebanon.

That disagreement was believed to have caused the postponement of the Sunday meeting that was to have taken up the dispatch of some 15,000 troops to the south.

It was always thought that Nasrallah would be able to finesse any stipulation to disarm. And in fact, the cease fire resolution left the question of Hizbullah disarmament for a later date, to be discussed with Israel in the context of a far ranging agreement with the government of Lebanon over a host of issues including prisoner exchange and the Shebaa Farms question.

My own opinion that this tactic by Nasrallah is his first post-war move in what is sure to be a contentious period of domestic Lebanese politics. I would not be surprised if in the next few hours, the 5 Shia ministers in Siniora’s cabinet resign. That would effectively bring down his government although he will probably be given an opportunity to form another one. The Prime Minister will find this very difficult because for all intents and purposes, the entire Shia block is under the control of Nasrallah.

Could Nasrallah manuever himself into a position of greater power as a result of the fall of the Siniora government? There is no major office open to him due to the power sharing arrangements mandated by the constitution. The Prime Minister’s office is reserved for Sunnis so it is extremely doubtful that Nasrallah would be given that office. However, he could very well put himself in the position of being a kingmaker, with ultimate veto power over any cabinet ministers named by Siniora. Needless to say, this would make Hizbullah disarmament even more remote.

Ed Morrissey thinks that Olmert manipulated the cease fire deliberately:

Does anyone not believe that this crisis has been precipitated by Hezbollah’s refusal to leave southern Lebanon and disarm? The cease-fire proposal put the onus on them to cease their attacks on Israel and to dismantle their military wing. I warned earlier that such a requirement would eliminate the need for Hezbollah at all; their entire raison d’etre for the Lebanese people has been as a shield against the Israelis. If the Lebanese Army took that function away from them, they just become another terrorist militia, a construct of which the Lebanese have rightly tired.

Nasrallah knew this. He signaled his approval yesterday of the cease-fire but objected to the arms embargo and the disarming of his organization. Perhaps he thought the Israelis would reject it, but when the Israeli Cabinet adopted it unanimously, it looks like Nasrallah had his bluff called.

This is certainly a valid analysis although as I pointed out, there is no immediate requirement in the cease fire agreement for Hizbullah to disarm. And I also think Ed is ascribing too much wit and wisdom to Olmert who has stumbled his way through this war. Only now has the IDF begun to make good progress against Hiz positions in the south. I think Olmert was taking the best deal he thought he could get and that the kind of subtlety Ed is crediting to Olmert doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

As I have written many times over the past month, in a military sense, Israel has smashed Hizbullah. This summation by IDF spokesman Daniel Oren speaking to Michael Totten is a partial accounting:

“Look at Nasrallah today,” Michael said. “In 2000 he did his victory dance in Bint Jbail. He can’t do that this time. His command and control south of Beirut is completely gone. We killed 550 Hezbollah fighters south of the Litani out of an active force of 1250. Nasrallah claimed South Lebanon would be the graveyard of the IDF. But we only lost one tenth of one percent of our soldiers in South Lebanon. The only thing that went according to his plan was their ability to keep firing rockets. If he has enough victories like this one, he’s dead.”

Nasrallah should have studied his Sun Tzu:

Build your opponent a golden bridge to retreat across.

If he doesn’t stop fighting tomorrow, he will have given Olmert at least a partial victory what with the IDF overrunning the south. Every day that the Israelis fight on makes him weaker. And anything that makes him weaker destroys his invincibility mystique.

The next 48 hours should be very interesting…

A scientific survey done by the Beirut Center for Research and Information is something of an eye opener. The survey was conducted by Lebanese statistician Abdo Saad between July 24 and July 26 according to confessional and regional distribution, including the opinion of refugees. 800 adults were queried on a variety of topics including the performance of the government during the crisis as well as attitudes toward Hizbullah’s actions that started the war and how the terrorist group is viewed in general by the population:

The answers to the first question showed a relatively high level of support for Hizbullah’s capture of two Israeli soldiers, contrasting the positions of some local political forces’ condemnation of the operation. Such support was based on a belief that Israel and the US intended to implement UN Security Council Resolution 1559 by force, regardless of whether Hizbullah carried out the July 12 raid.

Moreover, the results show the majority of Lebanese believe the only way to liberate Lebanese detainees in Israeli prisons is through the capture of Israeli soldiers and a prisoner swap, as was the case in 2000.

The survey showed near-identical numbers as an earlier survey, published by As-Safir on March 2. That survey showed 70.9 percent support for Hizbullah operations to capture Israeli soldiers.

This despite the heavy consequences being paid by Lebanese civilians for the Hizbullah incursion into Israel. Support for the kidnapping of the Israelis has even increased since March in the Christian community, thanks in part to Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun’s Memorandum of Understanding with Hizbullah agreed to last February that supported Hizbullah efforts to get Lebanese nationals released from Israeli prisons.

Support in the Druze community has fallen slightly from 49% in March to 40% now. This could reflect Druze leader Walid Jumblatt’s uncompromising condemnation of Hizbullah’s actions on July 12 and their incursion into Israel.

There is also strong support for Hizbullah’s terror tactics:

The survey showed 87 percent support for Hizbullah’s retaliatory attacks on northern Israel. Such a high level of support must be attributed to Hizbullah’s political and military performance, in addition to a national consensus identifying Israel as Lebanon’s main enemy.

The survey suggests that Hizbullah’s military performance has bolstered confidence in the resistance’s abilities as 63 percent of respondents expected a Hizbullah victory over Israel.

Hizbullah, an extremely media savvy terrorist group, will likely find a willing audience for the post war spinning of their lopsided military defeat into some kind of glorious victory.

Support for the US as an “honest broker” has dropped considerably:

The survey showed that a large majority of Lebanese do not consider the US to be an honest mediator (89.5 percent). A similar survey conducted by the Beirut Center for Research and Information published in As-Safir on January 31 showed 38.2 percent support for the US role in Lebanon. This drop is due to the close political cooperation between the US and Israel.

I imagine most Lebanese are extremely upset that the United States refuses to call upon Israel to stop bombing them. If I were in their position, I’d probably feel the same way.

Finally, there is mixed news for the government of Prime Minister Siniora:

Meanwhile, the majority of respondents were unsatisfied with their government’s performance on the diplomatic level (64.3 percent) and relief efforts (54 percent).

However, the rates varied according to sect, as 82.1 percent of Shiites polled and 64.8 percent of Sunnis polled said they were dissatisfied with the government, while 50.1 percent of Druze polled and 61.9 percent of Christians polled said the government had done a good job with humanitarian relief.

One might note that the bombing has fallen heaviest on the Shias and economically damaged the middle class Sunnis the most while the Druze (who are concentrated outside of Beirut) and the Christians (whose enclaves have barely been touched by the war) demonstrate support for the government.

Clearly, the people want Siniora to press Lebanon’s case more forcefully in the international arena and do a better job in dealing with the massive humanitarian crisis (more than 700,000 displaced people) that threatens to overwhelm Siniora’s shaky government.

What is most troubling is the apparent identification of Hizbullah as a force defending Lebanon. This is a change from before the war when most Druze and Christians saw Hizbullah as a danger to the Lebanese state. This attitude can only be bad news for Prime Minister Sinora (and the US and Israel) who will be facing a popular political figure in Nasrallah after the war who has been emboldened by public support for his militia.

It’s going to make disarming the terrorists that much harder.

In an interview with Al-Jazeera late Thursday night, Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah made it absolutely clear who was calling the shots in Lebanon - and it isn’t the Lebanese government.

Speaking more like a head of state than the leader of a minority political party and terrorist organization, Nasrallah emphasized that it was Hizbullah that would determine the length and intensity of the conflict with Israel and that the Lebanese government would be allowed to negotiate prisoner exchanges - under the right conditions.

He also threatened prominent Lebanese politicians who have criticized Hizbullah’s unprovoked aggression against Israel and dismissed the negative comments of Arab governments toward him and his organization.

It is clear from the interview that Nasrallah feels Hizbullah is in the ascendancy:

Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah’s interview with Al-Jazeera late Thursday night must have reassured his constituents that his leadership continues to function. At lease that was the impression of several ministers and politicians who saw the interview. These observers said Nasrallah appeared confident that Hizbullah will be triumphant in its fight against Israel. It was seen as perfectly normal for Nasrallah to try and boost the morale of his supporters. Nasrallah claimed Israel’s failure to realize its “overt and covert” goals as a Hizbullah victory.

The government and those parties that disagree with Nasrallah had warned the international community of this possibility, arguing that military operations by Israel would likely strengthen Hizbullah more than weaken it.

It was this reality that explains Nasrallah’s firm resolve while discussing the ongoing clashes with Israel.

While some of Nasrallah’s claims are sheer bluster, there is no doubt that he feels his organization has supplanted the Lebanese government as the final arbiter of war aims and war policy in that he says the military clashes with Israel will continue “for the foreseeable future” and he has outlined the role that the Lebanese government will play in any negotiations:

[B]y agreeing to conduct negotiations through the government (specifically Speaker Nabih Berri), Nasrallah consolidated an agreement made between Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, Berri and Hizbullah last week. Nasrallah also said the government was relaying proposals from the international community and that the resistance was commenting on them.

The ministerial sources said that while approving the government’s role, the conditions set by Hizbullah did not allow either the government or Berri a free hand.

Nabi Beri, the Shia Speaker of Parliament and member of the Amal party, is a close ally of Nasrallah. If Prime Minister Siniora recognizes a Hizbullah veto over any proposals for a prisoner exchange that ostensibly would lead to an end to the fighting, this makes Nasrallah (for the moment) the de facto head of government.

And to illustrate this, Nasrallah has called for the release of the longest held Lebanese prisoner in Israel - Samir Qantar - held since he was 17 years old in 1979 for the murder of 3 Israelis including a 4 year old girl. The Israeli government insists it will never release the terrorist. So by making an impossible demand of the Israelis to start with, it is clear that Nasrallah wishes to tie the hands of the government in any prisoner exchange negotiations.

As for criticism of Hizbullah’s actions by other Arab states, Nasrallah dismisses them out of hand:

Nasrallah said he did not care about Arab criticism of Hizbullah. Commenting on the issue, Nasrallah said, “We forgot them as if they [Arab states] do not exist,” and advised the Arabs to “leave us alone.” Some observers said the latter comment had a “harsh and negative” tone.

Perhaps most ominously, he is threatening more moderate Lebanese politicians who have criticized Hizbullah for attacking the Jewish state and taking Lebanon to war without consulting the legitimate government:

Nasrallah said his party would “hold some accountable and forgive others,” in response to MP Saad Hariri’s accusations that “adventurers who banked on the situation in Lebanon will be held accountable.”

The ministerial sources saw in this statement an “open threat without clear consequences.”

Hariri, son of the slain Prime Minister whose assassination galvanized the country into throwing off the yoke of Syrian occupation, is leader of the Future Movement, the largest bloc in Parliament. Other prominent members of FM who have harshly criticized Hizbullah include Druze leader Walid Jumblatt and Prime Minister Siniora, a secular Sunni with close ties to the Hariri family.

The assassination of any one of those politicians by Hizbullah would probably result in a civil war. If Nasrallah believes that his militia is in danger of losing their arms, he may think that initiating another civil war would be his only option in maintaining his position. A disarmed Hizbullah would simply be a minor party in Parliament, scrambling for scraps from the table while the larger parties enjoy the feast. It is doubtful, therefore, that he will give up his guns without a fight. It would be best if the international community understand this before establishing any kind of force in southern Lebanon to act as a buffer between Israel and Hizbullah. Not only will the terrorists refuse to give up their guns but they may feel it necessary to fight to regain their positions in southern Lebanon if it comes to that.

One wonders if it will be possible after the war to contain Hizbullah unless they are almost totally destroyed by Israel. But that would take a long time and would probably require a full scale invasion of Lebanon - something the Israelis appear reluctant to do. And with so much of the post-war shape of politics in Lebanon up in the air at the moment, one must also wonder if anything at all of Lebanese democracy can be salvaged from the wreckage that Hizbullah has wrought.

UPDATE

Coming up during the 3:00 PM Central hour, Ric Ottaiano will have the newest blogging sensation on a special edition of Release the Hounds.

Eugene, the new 17-year old Pajamas Media Special Correspondent from Haifa who has become known as “the Bunker Blogger” for his posts from a bomb shelter will be on live with Ric in just a few minutes.

You can access the stream by clicking on the “Listen Live” button on the left sidebar or you can go to the WAR Radio site.

You can call into the show during the broadcast at 1-888-407-1776.

UPDATE

I would like to register a complaint about my accomodations at the Lubyanka. While awaiting my trial,, the food served here isn’t fit for a pig, much less an enemy of the state. And one of my KGB guards smells like a wet dog. Not only that, he keeps whistling The Internationale off key. And to top it all off, my lawyer is now ensconced in the cell next to me and will have trouble defending himself much less anyone else.

I’d register a formal complaint but I don’t have anything to write with and I must save my toilet paper for emergencies. All I ask is that you put me out of my misery soon.

If true - and it just now cleared the wires - this will probably mean some kind of general Middle East war:

The London-based Arabic language newspaper Al-Hayat reported Saturday that “Washington has information according to which Israel gave Damascus 72 hours to stop Hizbullah’s activity along the Lebanon-Israel border and bring about the release the two kidnapped IDF soldiers or it would launch an offensive with disastrous consequences.”

[snip]

The source said that Israel has indicated that it “will not end its military activity until a new situation is created that will prevent Syria and Iran from using terror organizations, such as Hamas and Hizbullah, to threaten its security.”

Is al-Hayat reliable? I guess we’ll soon find out.

If true, this could mean that Israel is going for the gold; the elimination of the threat posed by Syria and Iran to the Jewish state as well as the destruction of their proxies Hamas and Hezballah.

The logic of the Israeli action is inescapable; why remove the stone from your shoe when the boulder threatens to fall on top of you?

The source for this story is an unnamed “official” in the Pentagon. His motivation for leaking can only be guessed at but one possible reason could be the Pentagon’s extreme concern for American troops in Iraq if, as expected, Iran were to openly declare support for Syria. One clear way to put pressure on Israel would be for Iran to release its militias in Iraq and get them to attack American military targets. If that were to happen, it would get very bloody indeed - especially for the militias. But could the nascent Iraqi government keep from flying apart if al-Sadr’s Mehdi Army and the Badr Brigades (who after all are the military arm of the largest political party in Iraq, the SCIRI) were to openly attack Americans? Unknown.

At the very least, the Iranians would be counting on the pressure from their militias in Iraq to force the Americans to intervene and work hard to stop the Israelis in their tracks. Since they are unable send any real assistance to Syria, their best bet would be to practice a little asymmetrical warfare.

And lets not forget that Iran has several hundred missiles capable of hitting Israel. If Iran goes to war, they’re conventional military forces would be no match for the Israelis which would leave them few options to strike at the Jewish state except their stockpile of missiles.

Washington may not have any say in whether or not Israel actually goes through with an attack on Syria (and Iran?). But what I found significant in what the Pentagon source told al-Hayat was that Israel would keep attacking until a “new situation is created that will prevent Syria and Iran from using terror organizations, such as Hamas and Hizbullah, to threaten its security.” This is a specific warning to Iran and Syria, putting them on notice that both are in the crosshairs.

Do we support Israel in their preemptive attack against Syria and Iran? We can hardly do any less. But for the sake of the world, I hope that Israel wins quickly and decisively. Otherwise, the consequences for the entire world would be dire indeed.

UPDATE

If this story holds up, I imagine I’ll be updating this post all day long.

Chris at Jawa Report:

Syria will not restrain Hizbullah and may be unable to do so without Iran’s agreement. Iran appears to be the major sponsor now.
If the report above is true, Israel will attack Syria for supporting the terrorist group.
Iran will be forced into the war in order to maintain its credibility in the region and to honor the mutual defense agreement it made with Syria in June.

The war will be much wider soon. The big question is: how much support will the US provide to Israel when it is facing the Palestinians, Hezbullah, Syria and Iran? Will we use this opportunity to strike at Iran’s nuclear facilities?

UPDATE II

Ed Morrissey has been on top of the Syria angle for the last 24 hours and reports that a statement issued last night by the Baathist party in support of Hizballah was formulated apparently without the help of Baby Assad, calling into question just who the hell is calling the shots in Syria at the moment.

I’ve written many times since the Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon how unahppy the political and military elites were with Assad both with the humiliating retreat as well as the loss of huge amounts of revenue that Syria had been milking from Lebanon for 15 years. This may be one more indication that Assad is little more than a figurehead while the day to day business of government is managed by some kind of “Super Cabinet” of three or four people. This was speculated on when the UN report on the Hariri assassination implicating Assad’s brother in law in the plot first came to light last December.

Ed adds this regarding the ultimatum:

Syria may believe that the mutual defense pact they have with Iran will cause enough nations to rein in Israel before the war escalates into a regional conflict. However, they may find their bluff insufficient. First, most of the West believes that this has already become a regional conflict, and that Syria and Iran have deep involvement in Hamas and Hezbollah. All Israel’s ultimatum accomplishes is to add significant risk to Syria directly for their proxy war. Second, the Iranians will find it quite difficult to march to the aid of Syria with 135,000 American troops blocking their way, and the US Navy in the Persian Gulf.

Israel has decided to raise the stakes on Syria. Will Syria blink?

Good question. A better one is can Baby Assad afford another humiliation?

UPDATE III

Haaretz is quoting an IDF official who is denying the ultimatum story:

Responding to a report in a pan-Arab daily newspaper that Israel presented Damascus with an ultimatum, an Israel Defense Forces officer said Saturday that targeting Syria is currently not on Israel’s agenda.

We’re not a gang that shoots in every direction,” the officer said. “It won’t be right to bring Syria into the campaign.”

The London-based Al-Hayat newspaper reported Saturday that Israel issued an ultimatum to Syrian President Bashar Assad, according to which a regional war would erupt within 72 hours if Damascus does not prevent Hezbollah attacks.

The officer is not identified nor do we know if he would be in a position to issue that kind of denial.

The day of reckoning for Hizballah has arrived. Prime Minister Olmert:

Israel will not halt its offensive in Lebanon until Hizbullah is disarmed, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Friday.

Olmert made the comments during a telephone call with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, Israeli government officials said Friday. Olmert agreed to allow a U.N. team come to the area to try to mediate a cease-fire, an official close to Olmert said.

[snip]

Olmert said he would only cooperate with the U.N. team if its mandate would be to free the captured Israeli soldiers and force Lebanon to comply with a U.N. resolution that calls on it to deploy its forces along its border with Israel, moving Hizbullah guerrillas out of the area, the official said.

Unless there is some kind of intervention - serious rhetoric from Washington warning the Israelis to halt their incursion into Lebanon - it appears that Hizballah’s days are numbered as a fighting force. As this short entry in Foreign Policy blog points out, this is a cause for celebration in many Arab capitols as well as Tel Aviv and Washington:

You’d think the last thing citizens of a country that suffered decades of civil war would want is an all-out attack by one of the most advanced militaries in the world. But some Lebanese and other Arabs around the region (including the Saudis), while obviously not in favor of the Israeli assault, are seeing this crisis as a death knell for Hezbollah and quietly cheering it on. The WaPo ran an analysis piece on the subject today, and ynetnews.com - the English version of the most widely read Hebrew daily in Israel - also has some analysis. A year after the Lebanese successfully booted most of the Syrian influence out of the government, some are realizing that allowing minority parties, like Hezbollah, to make decisions that affect the entire nation does not make for a functioning state.

Ever since the Cedar Revolution succeeded in kicking the Syrians out of Lebanon and electing a majority government, the question of what to do about Hizballah has alternately roiled and vexed Lebanese politics. The fragile coalition of religious, secular, and nationalist parties threatened to fly apart several times as the Lebanese cabinet struggled to come to grips with a seemingly insoluble conundrum; the fact that Hizballah is both a terrorist and political organization with real power both in the government and in the Lebanese street.

Any attempt at negotiating a solution that would have enabled the Lebanese to comply with UN Resolution 1559 that called for the disarming of all militias as well as the extension of Lebanese sovereignty over all of Lebanon was met with either a stonewall or doubletalk by Hizballah’s charismatic leader Hassan Nasrallah. He steadfastly refused to endorse UN assistance in disarming as well as rejecting out of hand any attempt by the Lebanese army to supplant his militia as the recognized “resistance” to Israel. This effectively meant that Nasrallah saw Hizballah as an independent force in both the military and political life of the nation, something that was proven when his cadres attacked Israeli troops and kidnapped two IDF soldiers.

It is unknown whether Hizballah’s aggression against Israel was planned or whether it was initiated by some local commander who saw an opportunity to inflict some pain on the Israelis:

Hezbollah and Israel stand along this border every day observing each other through binoculars and waiting for an opportunity to kill each other. They are at war. They have been for 25 years, no one ever declared a cease-fire between them. … They stand on the border every day and just wait for an opportunity. And on Tuesday morning there were two Humvees full of Israeli soldiers, not under observation from the Israeli side, not under covering fire, sitting out there all alone. The Hezbollah militia commander just couldn’t believe it — so he went and got them.

The Israeli captain in charge of that unit knew he had really screwed up, so he sent an armored personnel carrier to go get them in hot pursuit, and Hezbollah led them right through a minefield.

Now if you’re sitting in Tehran or Damascus or Beirut, and you are part of the terrorist Politburo so to speak, you have a choice. With your head sunk in your hands, thinking “Oh my God,” you can either give [the kidnapped soldiers] back and say “Oops, sorry, wrong time” or you can say, “Hey, this is war.”

It is absolutely ridiculous to believe that the Hezbollah commander on the ground said Tuesday morning, “Go get two Israeli soldiers, would you please?”

This may be true although it is not beyond the realm of the impossible to believe that local commanders had Nasrallah’s blessing to act if they saw an opening. However the events unfolded, Nasrallah embraced the action and is now paying an enormous price for it:

Hizbullah leaders and operatives were leaving Beirut on Saturday following a massive IAF strike on an 11-story building that served as the organization’s command center, initial intelligence indicated.

Channel 2 reported that the move appeared to be made under heavy security.

Earlier Saturday, IAF jets attacked targets in the northern Lebanese city of Tripoli, some 90 kilometers north of Beirut, marking the deepest Israel has struck inside Lebanon since the onset of Operation Just Rewards.

The jets also hit bridges and gas stations in eastern and southern Lebanon, and dropped tens of thousands of fliers over Lebanon trying to convey the message that Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah has taken control of their country and is bringing them disaster.

There are also reports of severe clashes in the south around the disputed Shebaa Farms region which would indicate that in addition to taking out as much Hizballah infrastructure as possible, the IDF was trying to degrade the combat capabilities of the terrorist group as well.

In short, Israel is doing to Hizballah what the Lebanese government lacked the power and political will to do for itself; Hizballah is being systematically disarmed.

It is unclear whether Israel’s intervention will be met with grudging assent by the Lebanese people or if the they will rally around Hizballah in sympathy. My own guess is that it will depend on how far Israel goes in Lebanon. If this operation takes many weeks and costs hundreds or thousands of Lebanese lives, I doubt very much that the people will feel anything but hatred for the Jewish state. It therefore becomes a matter of urgency that the Israelis do as much damage as they can to Hizballah as quickly as possible without “collateral” damage to either Lebanese infrastructure or the civilian population. This is what President Bush and Condi Rice have been asking and it makes perfect sense. Any Israeli action that allows Hizballah to become ascendant in Lebanese politics or in the government would be an unmitigated disaster.

Nasrallah may have had no choice but to embrace the actions of his subordinates. But it will be tough to spin a victory that will be believed by the Lebanese people with his entire infrastructure in ruins and his men scattered to the four winds.

I suppose I could make all sorts of classical references to the rebirth of the Carnival of the Clueless. You know - “the Phoenix is rising” or “the ghost in Hamlet walks the parapets again” or even “Ben Affleck is making another comeback.”

But that would be pretentious of me. And beside the point. The Carnival is not so much being reborn as it is being thrust down my readers throats as part of a gimmick to promote my radio show. And since I will do anything in the name of self-promotion, I thought why not reshoulder the burden of a weekly Carnival highlighting the absolute total cluelessness of so much of the human race. I need the links. I need the traffic. I need the adulation of the crowd.

I think I need a vacation.

We had several candidates for Cluebat of the Week. Your usual collection of idiots, nincompoops, scurvy rats, and just plain numbskulls. A late entry was Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, “Spiritual Leader” of the terrorist group Hizballah, who today is actually celebrating a “victory” over Israel even as IDF jets pound the holy living crap out of Hizballah positions in southern Lebanon. Maybe someone should tell ole Hassan that you don’t win wars by dying for your country. You win wars by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his. Then again, if we were to make it a group award, clearly the Palestinians would be close behind the Reverend Nasrallah.

But for sheer stupidity, not to mention her very existence being an affront to God, to Man, to Rational Thought, and snack food vendors everywhere, our Cluebat of the Week goes to Cindy Sheehan.

I don’t know about you but if I were ever to go on a hunger strike, I would, like, you know, GO ON A HUNGER STRIKE. Mama Sheehan’s idea of a hunger strike is, shall we say, unique. Slurping on smoothies and gobbling up ice cream sounds like a terrific way to lose a little weight. Fasting, it’s not.

So for demonstrating the kind of utter cluelessness we’ve come to expect from her ilk, we proudly award Cluebat of the Week to Cindy Sheehan.

Check out the 18 posts below. I’m sure you’ll find something to tickle your fancy. If not, let me know and, if you’re lucky (and female), I just might tickle it for ya…

“Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the the universe.”
(Albert Einstein)

“Got dat right, dog.”
(Me)

************************************************************

In the most public demonstration of cluelessness in the history of the human race, French soccer legend Zinedine Zidane, in front of 67,000 fans at the Olympiastadion in Berlin and another 1 billion people watching on television, head butted Italy’s Marco Materazzi in the chest, leading to his ouster from the game and dooming French chances in the ensuing shootout that gave the game and World Cup championship to Italy.

Fausta (who no longer has “Bad Hair” and now blogs at Faustasblog) notes the French media reaction as well as the antics of certain “black-white youths” who will use any excuse to make a bonfire out of a car.

What’t this? Ferdy the Cat on a hunger strike? Heaven forfend! No cheese balls for you, sweetie. In fact, Ferdy has taken the pledge: “Until Democrats in Congress stop saying stupid things about the War in Iraq, I, Ferdinand T. Cat, along with my pet human Bruce, swear to stop eating Sargento’s Mozzarella Cheese, and we will restrict ourselves to generic cheeses and other name brands.”

Those perky pachyderms at Elephants in Academia compare our Cluebat of the Week Cindy Sheehan’s “hunger strike” with the courageous stand taken by a freedom fighter in Cuba who is in his fifth month of a true hunger strike - you know, where you like, actually get hungry and stuff. Inspiring post.

Mr. Right channels Don McLean in penning this brilliant satire sung to the tune of “American Pie. “Don’t Cry Ms. American Spy” will do for Valerie Plame what “You’re so Vain” did for Mick Jagger.

Buckely F. Williams assures us that the Super-Animal world is not taking the launching of missiles by Kim Il Jong lying down. The Amazing Frog and his young ward Dormouse Boy are just two of the Super Animals who have taken up freedom’s cause. Let’s hope they’re not too late.

Fred Fry is warning Hamas to be careful what you wish for. And Fred thinks a little reality check for the PA is in order; They want to be in control, but they also want to play the same old games as before when they were simply a militant organization. The actions of Hamas are the actions of the Palestinian Government.

Much to their detriment the Israelis have figured that out already.

Don Surber reports on a suit filed by a female cheerleader over a male rah-rah’s sexual harassment. It appears the female cheerleader is all grown up and knows how to play the deep pockets game because she’s not suing the starving college kid but rather the school, the coach, and anyone with more than $10 bucks to their name.

Progressive What the Blog gives us the real difference between a geek and a nerd. To be honest, I always though a nerd was someone who never missed an episode of Star Trek while a geek tries to build a working model of The Enterprise. But then, what do I know? I was one of the cool kids in high school.

Conservathink has some shocking news regarding Senator Joseph Biden and his future as a pitchman. You know the Senator; “My hair line is completely natural, and pigs can fly!” Yep, that’s the guy.

Politico at Partisan Times has an interesting post about the cluelessness of Representative Murtha and the Democrats on the Iraq War.

Wenchypoo highlights the cluelessness of celebrities who think that by gallivanting around the planet “raising awareness” of third world poverty that they are actually making a difference.

What do you get when you mix politics, dead bodies, and Democrats? Canine Pundit supplies the answers.

Vox Poplar has an in depth interview with student leaders Rainbow Rockford and Phoenix Fillmore. And by in depth, he means “in-depth.”

King Allah has an interesting letter to his linguistics professor.

Clip Frenzy has a video of a drunk getting tasered. Not once, but several times. Can we accuse a drunk of being clueless? In this case, let’s make an exception.

A Different River asks the question of the hour; Would you donate your virginity to science?

Our favorite hippie chick Peace Moonbeam is hanging out with Cindy Sheehan and trying to stop the war while starving to death - or something.

The gentle folk at The Common Room teach us a valuable lesson about the cluelessness of some people and their expectations regarding government.

Starting at 7:00 AM central time, you can listen to the show by clicking the button on the left sidebar.

Today’s show will feature the news headlines, commentary on the horrific video of our Marines being beheaded, a surprise visit from my liberal neighbor Marvin Moonbat, and we’ll take your calls to discuss the issues of the day

We’ll start taking calls after 7:30 AM Central at 1-888-407-1776.

Note: I had the number wrong before. Did the same thing on the air. No wonder nobody called!

The number is now correct.

I particpated in this week’s Pundit Roundtable at Willisms. McCracken had some crackling good subjects to comment on:

Topic 1: North Korea tested seven missiles this week. What, if anything, can or should be done about Kim Jong-Il, his missiles, and his nuclear program?

Topic 3: What is your favorite place you have been to?

My responses:

Topic 1: There really isn’t that much more we can be doing about North Korea than what we are doing now. China is the key to Kim’s heart, being the only thing standing between the NoKo’s and total collapse. Beijing supplies Kim with the food and fuel his country needs to survive on a day to day basis. And even with China’s help, there are indications that thousands are starving to death every month.

But why should China pull our chestnuts out of the fire? We are currently in a full blown competition with them in east Asia and anything that ties us down is just fine with them. So China plays a very interesting and dangerous game; keeping the fires of crisis stoked at a low level while walking a tightrope with us on one side and the North Koreans on the other. They don’t want to appear too uncooperative in getting Kim to give up his nukes while at the same time, it is in their interest for Kim to be threatening Japan, South Korea, and us.

The solution will have to come with us putting a little more overt pressure on China. At the moment, China still needs us a little bit more than we need them. We must use that fact to our advantage and get both Russia and China to knock some sense into the North Korean dictator.

Kim, by the way, is not crazy - not in the sense that he hears voices or wears a lampshade to Politburo meetings. But his society is the most insular in the world and he really has no clue how his pronouncements or actions come off to the rest of us. Former Secretary of State Albright was struck by this fact when she visited in 1997. It’s like living on a different planet being in North Korea.

Topic 2: One of the really beautiful things about America is freedom of the press. Unlike Great Britain, we have no Official Secrets Act which makes our press free to publish anything it desires, using only its own conscience as a guide.

I’m not sure why Bill Keller and the Times went with the bank monitoring story. The program was by all accounts legal and that the publishing of it embarrassed people in Europe who were helping us at great personal risk to their own careers and position. My only speculation there is that the Times has decided to take an absolutist position on the Bill of Rights - or at least those portions they feel the Bush Administration is violating. Not an indefensible position but certainly troubling.

As for the leakers, it is past time that there be examples made of them. We need arrests, prosecutions, and jail time for people who flout their oaths and damage our security by circumventing the whistleblowing system we have already in place in our intel agencies and blabbing some of most closely held secrets to the Washington Post or New York Times. If their consciences are bothering them so much about a specific action, there are procedures they can take short of talking to the press that would address their concerns. There simply is no excuse for their actions which leads one to the conclusion that they have ulterior motives in leaking. But personal or partisan, their motivations are irrelevant when we are talking about breaking the law.

Topic 3: Glen Lake, Michigan. It doesn’t exist anymore, at least not as I remember it. But when I was a kid, it was as close to heaven as this suburban boy was ever likely to get. There were forests full of deer to explore. There were sailboats and rowboats and swimming all day. There was a picnicking. There was also no TV and no phone which made curling up next to a roaring fire to keep out the northwoods chill with Edgar Rice Burroughs or Alexander Dumas such an utter joy. There was the first kiss as well. The first time I drank coffee. The first time I smoked a cigarette. The last time I saw my grandfather.

When my family started to take vacations there 44 summers ago, there may have been 2 or 3 motor boats on the entire lake. Today, thanks to making the Sleeping Bear sand dunes a national park, there are dozens of developments around the lake, even a high rise hotel. It is no longer the place it was in my youth. But it still exists in my mind as a magical, carefree place where our family was oh so close and where many of the mysteries of growing up were asked and answered.

*******************************************

Ken was also kind enough to ferret out a picture of Glen Lake as seen from directly across the lake from where we used to stay. I could almost see our big, rambling two story, 7 bedroom summer house where so many of my best memories from childhood played out.

Thanks for digging that up, Ken.

Like a serial bloodletter in a teen slasher movie, the immigration bill, pronounced dead last week by House Republicans, has risen from the grave and is once again stalking the halls of Congress.

This version appears to be more like Ted Bundy than Michael Meyers. Instead of a bloody hatchet, amnesty supporters are going to try getting “comprehensive” immigration reform by smiling and being agreeable with the House - up to a point.

Key Senators have actually agreed that enforcement should be the #1 priority in any immigration bill, at least for the present:

Key backers of the Senate immigration bill said yesterday they are willing to consider a compromise that would delay the guest-worker program and “amnesty” portions until the borders have been secured.

The proposal was floated by Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter in an interview Monday with editors and reporters at The Washington Times.

“I think it’s worth discussing,” said Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican. “Many of us have said we could work on border enforcement and, at the same time, work on other aspects that would take more time.”

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat, said a delay will occur anyway because it will take a few years to set up the guest-worker program and the structure to process millions of illegal aliens onto a pathway to citizenship.

“We’ve always understood that,” he said, adding that the final bill must be “comprehensive” and include all provisions.

“That’s the key,” he said, after he, Mr. McCain and others hosted a broad coalition of outside groups demanding a comprehensive bill

Will the House play the part of the stupid teenager who walks into the dark room and whispers, “Who’s there?” right before being chopped into little pieces?

Reaction at the other end of the Capitol was more muted, with at least one key House leader continuing yesterday to point out flaws in the Senate bill.

The House and Senate approved very different immigration bills, with the House focusing on building 700 miles of fence on the U.S.-Mexico border, boosting enforcement and requiring employers to verify that their workers are here legally. The Senate bill boosts enforcement, too, but also creates a program for future immigrant workers and a path to citizenship for many current illegal aliens.

Putting off amnesty in order to placate the enforcement crowd in the House just won’t cut it. Unfortunately, there may be enough Republicans willing to take such a deal if the White House starts turning the screws on lawmakers in tough re-election fights.

It’s no secret not too many Republicans want President Bush to appear with them on the same campaign platform in the run-up to the election. But that doesn’t take into account the fact that the President has his hand on the money spigot for the Republican party, able to turn the juice on or off and reward his friends while punishing those who may not toe the line on immigration. And the party at the moment is flush with cash and will be able to pour money into districts at the President’s discretion.

Clearly, Bush can’t be too aggressive in denying cash to Republicans who won’t back him on immigration, given the narrow Republican majority in the House he must protect. But to believe he won’t or can’t use his power as party leader in this way would be a dangerous gamble for any Republican to undertake. Hence, immigration has become the bill that won’t be killed.

House Republicans are starting to squirm which is not a good sign. Mike Pence of Indiana has endorsed a comprehensive immigration solution that we could perhaps refer to as “Amnesty Lite:”

Rep. Mike Pence, Indiana Republican, said it’s a “very big deal” that Mr. Specter is willing to put border security first in the final bill. He also said he has a bill that may bridge the “amnesty” divide between the two chambers because he thinks many House Republicans could accept a guest-worker program that requires illegal aliens to return to their home country before they can apply for it.

He has a proposal that would set up a privately run system to do this, and he thinks this “no-amnesty guest-worker” program could work.

“I think the majority of House conservatives would be open to a no-amnesty guest-worker program,” he said.

His bill also would set up a time frame, dedicating two years exclusively to border security before progressing to the rest of the bill.

If that “no amnesty guest worker program” sounds familiar, it should. That’s pretty much what we have now.

Can House Republicans resist pressure from the Senate and the President to come to terms on “comprehensive” immigration reform? Hopefully, this is will be one sequel where the bloodthirsty maniac really, really dies.