Target Centermass

Month: March 2006

  • Aggie Hoops: Finally a Big 12 Tourney Win

    Texas A&M entered today’s quarterfinal with zero wins in the history of the Big 12 conference’s tournament. Well before the contest with Colorado was over, it was clear that the 0-9 tournament streak was coming to an end as the Ags cruised to a 86-53 statement win.

    Texas A&M finally got to play a Friday game in the Big 12 tournament. The Aggies will get to stick around and find out what it’s like playing on the weekend.

    Joseph Jones had 21 points and Josh Carter 15, including four of Texas A&M’s season-high 12 3-pointers, and the Aggies won in the Big 12 tournament for the first time, beating Colorado 86-53 in the quarterfinals.

    The Aggies (21-7), who have won a league-high eight straight games, play No. 8 Texas (26-5) in the semifinals Saturday. That comes 10 days after Acie Law hit a 3-pointer at the buzzer in a 46-43 victory over the Longhorns.

    In what might have been an NCAA elimination game, Colorado (20-9) was only 18-of-60 shooting and was never in the game after jumping out to a quick 9-2 lead. The Buffaloes will have to wait until Sunday to find out if they go to the NCAAs for first time since 2003, and third time in 10 1/2 seasons under coach Ricardo Patton.

    […]

    Texas A&M had never played on the second day of the Big 12 tournament, having lost in the first round nine straight years before getting a first-round bye as the No. 4 seed this year.

    With the way the game began, it looked as if the Aggies might extend their dubious postseason streak. Then they started hitting long-range shots.

    The Aggies trailed until Carter’s first 3-pointer made it 13-11 with 10:46 left in the first half. They never trailed again and went on to their biggest margin of victory in a postseason game.

    After Roby missed, Carter made another 3-pointer while being fouled and added the free throw.

    Even when Colorado extended its defensive pressure beyond the arc, and the shot clock was running down, Law made a long 3-pointer. The shot clock was nearing zero again on the next possession when Dominique Kirk hit, pushing the Aggies ahead 23-13.

    Those four 3-pointers were part of a 23-2 spurt that ended when Jones made a tough baseline jumper while being fouled. He missed the free throw, but it was still 29-13 with 5 minutes left.

    Jones didn’t have any of the 3-pointers, but was 8-of-10 shooting.

    The Aggies led 38-24 at halftime, then opened the second half with Jones making a layup and then a free throw after being fouled. Colorado never got closer than 14 points after that, and trailed by at least 20 the final 12 minutes after Carter hit another 3-pointer to make it 53-33.

    Let the analysts and pundits debate whether the Ags are a lock for a trip to March Madness or are still a team on the bubble. As for me, I’m just going to enjoy today’s great leap forward — it is, after all, a far sweeter moment that last year.

  • Iraqis to Take Control of Abu Ghraib

    At long last, the possible shrugging off of a media nightmare by the American military.

    Abu Ghraib, the prison that served as a house of torture under Saddam Hussein and was latterly the scene of the US military’s worst prisoner abuse scandal, is to be handed over to the Iraqi government.

    The decision yesterday came as the Iraqi authorities announced they had hanged 13 insurgents, marking the first time militants have been executed in the country since Saddam Hussein was ousted.

    The US military said yesterday that its new facility near Baghdad airport to house security prisoners now held at Abu Ghraib prison should be ready within three months.

    Lt Col Kier-Kevin Curry, a spokesman for US military detainee operations, said completion of the new prison at Camp Cropper, where Saddam and his co-defendants have been held since their capture, would set the transfer in motion.

    “We will transfer operations from Abu Ghraib to the new Camp Cropper once construction is completed there. No precise dates have been set, but the plan is to accomplish this [completion of construction] within the next two to three months,” Lt Col Curry said.

    “Once we transfer operations from Abu Ghraib, the facility will be turned over to the Iraqi government.”

    The prison, which currently holds over 4,500 detainees, came to symbolise US mishandling of some prisoners captured in Iraq, both during the US-led invasion three years ago and in the fight to subdue the largely Sunni Muslim insurgency since then.

    Although I recognize that the prison is now sadly infamous for American military abuses, I have two key questions here. First, does anyone really believe that the Iraqi government and military is sufficiently mature yet to prevent worse abuses? Second, why are Saddam’s abuses, far worse than any chronicled against the American military, never carried in these stories as a frame of reference like the American abusese?

    Widely publicised photographs of prisoner abuse by US military guards and interrogators led to intense global criticism of the US war in Iraq and fuelled the insurgency.

    Photos showed one of the guards, Private Lynndie England, abusing naked Iraqi prisoners, including an image where she held a leash tied around an undressed male detainee’s neck. England was sentenced to three years in prison.

    She was among nine US soldiers who were charged in the Abu Ghraib scandal. Her ex-boyfriend, Specialist Charles Graner, with whom she had a child, was sentenced in January 2005 to ten years in prison.

    Yes, we abused. Yes, we prosecuted. I thank the author of this story for making the latter clear, though I feel a little more of the prison’s brutal history would have added some perspective. Hell, there would have been no shortage of ways to put the American Abu Ghraib abuse into perspective historically, but that never has been attempted in the handling of this tale.

    The hand-over of authority at Abu Ghraib will take place in phases, Lt Col Curry said, beginning with basic training for prison guards, followed by Iraqis working side by side with US forces at detention facilities. Iraqi guards will then start running detainee operations themselves with a transition team overseeing them before they assume complete control.

    Okay, here’s my predictions on how this story will be handled by the New York Times, the same Paper of Record that carried front-page coverage of American Abu Ghraib for some thirty-some-odd consecutive days: no front page coverage and any article will be accompanied by a tired old American-abuse photo. If I’m wrong about this, it will be on the absence of a photo — it would, after all, attract attention to a story best left buried.

  • Sheehan Bails on Protesting at American Post in Europe

    And now, the much ballyhooed appearance by Gold Star mom Cindy Sheehan at the gates of an American military base apparently has been axed.

    Cindy Sheehan says she will not be near Ramstein Air Base or participate in a protest march from Landstuhl to Ramstein on Saturday if she goes through with a planned trip to Europe.

    Sheehan, the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq and the woman who protested the war last summer outside President Bush’s ranch in Texas, said in an e-mail Wednesday to Stars and Stripes that “everything is up in the air at this point.”

    Sheehan is due to arrive in Frankfurt on Thursday. Despite uncertainty clouding Sheehan’s visit, protesters and counterprotesters still plan to gather outside Ramstein Air Base on Saturday afternoon.

    Sheehan was arrested Monday in New York City outside the U.S. mission to the United Nations when she and other protesters attempted to deliver a petition calling for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Her condition raises doubts as to whether she will make the trip to Germany and France.

    “If I am there, I won’t be anywhere near the air force base … or participate in the march,” wrote Sheehan on Wednesday. “I was brutalized in New York the other day by the NYPD (New York Police Department) and I need to go to the doctor today (Wednesday).”

    When asked why she would not protest near the air base, Sheehan replied: “I don’t want the soldiers to feel we don’t support them, and soldiers can’t redeploy themselves.”

    So, which is it, Gold Star mom Cindy Sheehan? The brutality you suffered through at the unmerciful hands of the NYPD or your support of the American military personnel who, surprisingly, are not at liberty to write their own orders?

    I think that this is a case where Gold Star mom Cindy Sheehan’s handlers — and that is what they are — have decided that it is best to continue to use her notoriety and name but not her presence.

    After all, Confederate Yankee‘s Bob Owens visually and clearly demonstrates that any police brutality accusations are a complete crock.

    Methinks instead that Gold Star mom Cindy Sheehan’s handlers think it’s best that her image not come up in blatant contrast with the military Gold Star mom Cindy Sheehan claims she supports — as will be the case in Germany.

    Please, Gold Star mom Cindy Sheehan, I beg and plead that you press charges of brutality against the NYPD. Please speak truth to power, Gold Star mom Cindy Sheehan, about how the New York coppers kept ya from standing up to the Man in Germany.

  • Ports Deal Crumbles, Dubai Firm to Sell U.S. Assets

    Well, so much for the United Arab Emirates ports story.

    With President Bush unable to contain a Republican congressional rebellion, a company owned by the United Arab Emirates vowed Thursday to turn over its just-acquired operations at six major U.S. port terminals to an American entity.

    The surprise move came after congressional leaders told Bush on Thursday morning that there was no way to stop lawmakers from blocking Dubai Ports World’s takeover of terminal operations at the ports.

    Republican and Democratic lawmakers reacted cautiously to the company’s apparent surrender, saying they needed to learn more about the details before abandoning their attempts to block DP World.

    DP World obtained the terminals as part of its acquisition of Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., a British firm. That transaction, which the Bush administration approved in January, aroused a public furor that drove Congress into open conflict with the White House.

    The announcement was an extraordinary retreat that signaled a shift in the power relationship between the White House and Congress. Bush has been unused to losing. But this time, the Republican-led House of Representatives, which has been a rubber stamp for the president for the past five years, was the first to revolt.

    Republicans were furious when the president promised last month to veto any legislation that blocked the deal. Congress ignored Bush’s threat, and a 62-2 vote to block the deal by the House Appropriations Committee on Wednesday left no doubt that Congress would override a veto if the president dared to cast one.

    After Thursday’s meeting of congressional leaders with Bush at the White House, DP World’s chief operating officer, H. Edward Bilkey, surprised lawmakers when he issued a statement promising that the company would divest itself of its U.S. terminals.

    “Because of the strong relationship between the United Arab Emirates and the United States and to preserve this relationship, His Highness Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, vice president and prime minister of the UAE and rule of Dubai, has decided to transfer fully the U.S. operations of P&O Ports North America Inc. to a United States entity,” Bilkey’s statement said.

    Nevertheless, Senate Democrats pressed ahead with attempts to block DP World’s takeover, and House leaders weighed whether to proceed as well.

    Critics of the original deal weren’t backing away from congressional action.

    “I’m skeptical,” said Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla. “I’d prefer (legislation) go through because it gives us a safeguard.”

    Likewise, Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said he didn’t intend to remove the ports provision from an emergency spending bill for hurricane relief and the war in Iraq.

    Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., added: “Congressional plans are to move forward with the appropriations language next week which kills the transaction. Just to make sure.”

    DP World would have taken over terminals in Miami, Philadelphia, New York, New Jersey, Baltimore and New Orleans as well as some stevedoring operations at 15 others.

    […]

    The question that loomed late Thursday was who would buy the U.S. interests, and whether the firm would sell the assets in pieces.

    Eller & Co., whose Miami subsidiary Continental Stevedoring & Terminals sued to block the sale, said it might attempt to buy the terminals. “We are certainly encouraged by what the statement said,” Eller attorney Michael Kreitzer said. “We think we are one of the companies (that could buy it). We have been in the business for 70 years. We could do it.”

    Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., an early opponent of the DP World deal and an influential one as the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said Thursday’s announcement was encouraging. “I don’t think Dubai ports would have done this … if they didn’t think there was someone out there,” he said. “Hopefully they have more than one (bidder), otherwise they’re going to have to do a fire sale.”

    Michael Hopkins, the vice president of Crowley Liner Services at Port Everglades in Florida, said he expected DP World to sell its interests to several firms rather than one large operator.

    […]

    “To be honest, I have no idea,” said Steve Erb, who manages P&O ports operations in Miami. “I can just say that the five largest terminal operators in the world aren’t American.”

    I had not blogged on this brouhaha yet, though I had certainly intended to do so (damn you, oncall pager). I’ll admit that I initially balked when I heard the news that an Arab company was being handed the security responsibilities for six American ports. And that right there is why this deal is dead — horridly bombastic, sensationalistic and inaccurate journalism. The deal did not involve control of security. The fact that these six terminals are already managed by a foreign company was not reported. Still, weeks later, a large portion of the stories continued such inaccuracies and omissions. Remember when former Vice President Al Gore yelled that the Bush administration played upon our fears? Well, that is most assuredly what the media did with this story, at the sad expense of the truth. Politicians from both sides chose to capitalize upon these fears. Hey, after all, it’s an election year, and the media have already made clear how they will play this tale.

    Instead, the victim in this tale is an Arab ally, just the sort of friend we should be fostering. Protein Wisdom‘s Jeff Goldstein at expands greatly upon my concerns in this matter.

    Is this a national security question? My sense is that while it has been hyped as such—and that the majority of congress persons and the American public caved to their fears—it never really was. And from a free market perspective—which, along with the promotion of liberal democracy, is part of the memetic message we are trying to sell abroad—this is a set back.

    To win this war, we must insist that our way of life is worth defending. Congress has damaged our relationship with the Gulf states (and in the UAE, we have a very good working relationship), determined our economic policy, and show us to be unwilling to practice what we preach.

    I only hope that the UAE understands the vicissitudes of our political system in advance of elections and is willing to accept that the timing for the deal—moreso than any idea of xenophobia—is ultimately responsible for outcome. Which is strange, feeling like I have to rely on the pragmatism of the UAE in order not to take a giant ideological step backward in the war on terror.

    Similarly, we are going to be forced to rely on the pragmatism of the rank and file Muslim who, we must secretly hope, recognizes that we have security concerns that must be dealt with domestically—and so they are able to resist the spin our enemies are likely to put on this: that the US, as Al Gore already told them, is openly hostile to Muslims.

    […].

    A positive outcome from all this might be that we take a closer look at securing points of entry (and resistance to the deal by Democrats could potentially redound on them when it comes to the Mexican border, if certain Republicans play their rhetorical cards right)—but I hope we manage to do so in a way that is consistent with the free market system we profess to promote.

    Indeed, I hope every senator and representative that has played a part in attacking this business move by an ally will have the integrity to follow through with the rhetoric used to date — move immediately to stop foreign management of all points of entry. Otherwise, just come right out and say that you have essentially used racial profiling to shut down a business deal.

    These same six terminals were previously controlled by a British-owned company; are you saying that our terrorist enemies could penetrate a U.A.E. company but could never have been an issue with the U.K.? Really, I have little complaints about profiling, but there are places where I think it should be utilized first before this instance. I fully expect everyone in Congress who helped kill this deal that doesn’t immediately move against any foreign port management to explain why they will racially profile an ally-owned company but will not racially profile airline passengers that match those who have previously and repeatedly killed our fellow citizens.

  • The United States of Islam

    In my previous post, I mentioned the know-thy-cultural-enemy file. The Redhunter has another entry of a visual nature. Be certain to check the “After 100 Years” section in the lower right corner of the graphic.

  • What I’m Reading Tonight

    First, here’s a somewhat interesting, though rarely insightful, look at the friction between the American media and military.

    “There’s an irony here, because when you had embedding, there was a sense that the reporting was better than ever,” says Dan Goure, a military analyst with the Lexington Institute. “But since the end of major combat operations, the relationship has really gone to hell. There is a strongly held perception in the military – particularly the Army – that the media is doing the enemy’s work. You guys are seen as the Jane Fondas of the Iraq war. And so the military attitude is, ‘why should we level with you, because you’re going to screw us.’”

    That attitude apparently goes all the way to the top: Yesterday, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said that “the steady stream of errors [by the media] all seem to be of a nature to inflame the situation and to give heart to the terrorists and to discourage those who hope for success in Iraq.”

    Goure says the relationship between the press and military has been bad since the time of the Vietnam War. In World War II and the Korean War, he says, the military had a sense that the press was on their side. But today, he argues, “both the military and the media have unrealistic expectations of each other,” as they have for the past 40 years. “The military expects the media to be a kind of public affairs arm, and the media expects the military to move faster and more agilely on these kinds of issues than they can. When the military is dealing with a problem, it has to go through the chain of command, there are reviews – it’s a very laborious process.”

    All of that seems pretty dead on, but then there’s the following:

    Many of the reporters I spoke to say the military’s secrecy has helped them control stories, which suggests there may not be a change in press strategy anytime soon, despite the embarrassment caused by the Tillman case. Fidell, who has crusaded for more openness on the part of the military, characterizes the situation bluntly. “At the moment,” he says, “they’re winning.”

    The media want more openness from the military, but essentially refuse to cover any positive story that they’re able to dodge. Sure, big tales like successful elections cannot be buried, but I’ll wager that I could go to CENTCOM or Defend America and find a wealth of positive news releases that have received no media play. Heck, while talking about military secrecy or hesitant forthcoming, this story doesn’t even mention the fact that it was indeed the military that broke the news on the Abu Ghraib abuse story.

    Second, Elephants in Academia takes an look at SecDef Donald Rumsfeld’s interactions with wounded American troops and the dichotomy of how this relationship is presented when drawn by an editorial cartoonist and captured by a camera (hat tip to Confederate Yankee).

    I gave writing this post a fair amount of thought for a couple of reasons. For starters, it’s about that Tom Toles Washington Post cartoon from late January, and I hate to give it any more play. And it’s about Donald Rumsfeld, and I’m aware that I’ve had more than enough to say about him recently. But I’ve decided to throw caution to the wind because I found the visual comparison between the two pictures so striking. And ultimately I hope the post is about more than Toles and Rumsfeld–it’s about the disconnect that I see between public perception of the military based on the way it is portrayed in the press and the reality of the military as I understand it. I know it’s somewhat unfair to compare a stylized drawing like a political cartoon with a photograph because of its attendent aura of verisimilitude, so I would like to start with the disclaimer that both are constructs since, of course, all photographs are shaped by the person who pushes the button and by the way the subjects deport themselves. But in this case, I think that, as in the cartoon, the construct is instructive.

    Don’t let the hedging in that intro dissuade you from what is a very intriguing read and a striking visual contrast.

    Third, here’s a so-far fascinating four-corner discussion on the abusive, oft-disgusting treatment of women by many of those of the Islamic faith (hat tip to Howie at the Jawa Report).

    A Muslim rape epidemic in sweeping over Europe — and over many other nations host to immigrants from the Islamic world. The direct connection between the rapes and Islam is irrefutable, as Muslims are significantly overrepresented among convicted rapists and rape suspects. The Muslim perpetrators themselves boast that their crime is justified since their victims were, among other things, not properly veiled.

    What is the psychology here? What is the significance of this epidemic? And how do we face it when our own feminists, with a few exceptions, are deafingly silent about it?

    I’ll admit I haven’t finished reading this lengthy piece yet but, so far, I’d say it’s safe to tuck it into the know-thy-cultural-enemy file.

  • Carnival of Liberty XXXV

    This week’s installment of the Life, Liberty, Property community’s Carnival of Liberty is up over at Owlish Mutterings. Go read another fine collection of posts from a libertarian slant.

  • UNC Students Debate Attack as ‘Terrorism’

    Apparently, some today are willing to argue that water isn’t wet.

    A rally at UNC on Monday turned into a heated debate between protestors who were calling on university administrators to label Friday’s attack as “terrorism” and students who thought the protest was divisive and insensitive to Muslims.

    About 20 students gathered in The Pit, a gathering point near the center of UNC’s campus where Friday’s attack occurred, to “condemn religious violence” and to ask UNC administrators and the news media to call last week’s crime terrorism, organizers wrote in a news release.

    Nine students were injured after being hit by a Jeep Grand Cherokee allegedly driven by Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, a recent UNC graduate. When Taheri-azar, a native of Iran, called 911 to turn himself in, he said he attacked the students to “punish the government of the United States for their actions around the world.” University police have said he specifically intended to avenge the deaths of Muslims.

    Monday’s protestors had intended to give speeches about their aim, but those plans were scuttled following a large and impromptu debate about the message that the rally sent to Muslim students.

    Jonathan Pourzal, a UNC sophomore, told the protestors that their mission offended him. He said attempts to label the alleged crimes as terrorism strengthen prejudices against Muslims.

    “By calling it religious violence, you are telling people that Muslims are violent,” Pourzal said.

    Well, let’s see. The attack was most assuredly violent, and the motivations were most definitely religious in nature. To correct Mr. Pourzal, by not calling it religious violence, you are telling people that you’re an idiot.

    No, Taheri-azar didn’t open fire with an AK-47 or trigger an IED. He did not fly a plane into the crowd of students, but he did drive an SUV into a crowd of innocents with intent to harm and possibly kill. It may seem pretty penny-ante (from a distance) when compared to other acts but, make no mistake, it was certainly an act of terror.

  • Military Recruiters Win Access Suit

    Good news came out of Washington, D.C., today, as the Supremes pimp-slapped a collection of anti-military academics to the tune of 8-nada.

    The Supreme Court ruled, 8 to 0, on Monday that colleges and universities that accept federal money must allow military recruiters on campus even if people in the academic community deplore the Pentagon’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on gay people.

    Ending a decade-long battle in favor of the Defense Department, the court rejected the argument of law school faculty members that being forced to associate with military recruiters violated their First Amendment rights to free speech and association.

    “Law schools ‘associate’ with military recruiters in the sense that they interact with them, but recruiters are not part of the school,” Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. wrote for the court. “Students and faculty are free to associate to voice their disapproval of the military’s message.”

    At issue in the case of Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, or FAIR, is the Solomon Amendment, which withholds federal grants from universities that do not open their doors to military recruiters “in a manner at least equal in quality and scope” to the access offered civilian recruiters.

    The American Association of Law Schools has long required its members to insist that prospective employers agree to a policy of nondiscrimination on grounds that include sexual orientation. The association’s stand set the stage for a conflict with the military and its “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

    Some law schools tried to comply with the Solomon Amendment by half- measures, relegating military recruiters to off-campus locations. But Congress specified in 2004 that mere access for military recruiters is not enough; it demanded equal access.

    Although law schools became the centers of campus resistance, their full colleges and universities stood to lose if they ran afoul of the Solomon Amendment. The federal money at stake comes from a wide range of agencies and for a wide variety of uses.

    When the case was argued before the Supreme Court on Dec. 6, Roberts zeroed in on the universities’ apparent desire to have it both ways – to show disapproval of the military’s treatment of gay people but still accept federal money.

    “What you’re saying is, this is a message we believe in strongly, but we don’t believe in it to the detriment of $100 million,” the chief justice told a university lawyer.

    The decision, in which Justice Samuel Alito Jr. took no part because he joined the court after the case was heard, overturned a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which had found in favor of FAIR.

    At the time of the Third Circuit’s ruling, I blogged that it was “destined to be appealed and hopefully overturned” because of my following take on the matter:

    Realize first that we’re talking about an all-volunteer military that discriminates on a variety of factors in its hiring policies. I don’t recall my tank being wheelchair-accessible. Because of the special role that the military plays, it has long been legally held that even some constitutional rights are surrendered or curtailed for its members.

    This ruling essentially seems to give a free hand to law schools and other institutions of higher education to ordain any aspect of the military that they feel is discriminatory and banish recruiters as they see fit. Well, without the ruling, they could already do this, but with the understanding that there could be financial repurcussions. The schools want to fight what they view as discrimination by the government with discrimination against the government, as long as it doesn’t hit the bottom line.

    It’s almost like Chief Justice Roberts reads Target Centermass. Still, the 8-0 shutout is a sweet bonus I did not anticipate.

  • Cindy Sheehan Arrested After U.N. March

    Gold Star mom Cindy Sheehan is back in the headlines again for yet another arrest. Bully for her — she’s scored another attention fix.

    Cindy Sheehan, who drew international attention when she camped outside President Bush’s ranch to protest the Iraq war, was arrested Monday along with three other women during a demonstration demanding the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

    The march to the U.S. Mission to the United Nations by about a dozen U.S. and Iraqi anti-war activists followed a news conference at U.N. headquarters, where Iraqi women described daily killings and ambulance bombings as part of the escalating violence that keeps women in their homes.

    Women Say No to War, which helped organize the news conference and march, said Sheehan and three other women were arrested while trying to deliver a petition to the U.S. Mission to the United Nations with more than 60,000 signatures urging the “withdrawal of all troops and all foreign fighters from Iraq.” Police said they were arrested for criminal trespassing and resisting arrest.

    […]

    Richard Grenell, the spokesman for the U.S. Mission, said in response to Sheehan’s arrest: “We invited her in to discuss her concerns with a U.S. Mission employee. She chose not to come in but to lay down in front of the building and block the entrance. It was clearly designed to be a media stunt, not aimed at rational discussion,” Grenell said.

    This is the third arrest for Gold Star mom Cindy Sheehan (see here and here for her previous run-ins with the long arm of the law). At this point, one has to wonder how much ink has to be wasted on this woman, be it through biassed fluff pieces in the media or through fingerprinting during bookings.

    Meanwhile, Gold Star mom Cindy Sheehan’s upcoming protest in front of an American military base in Germany is still on, and Davids Medienkritik brings us the good word that a counter-rally is in the works.

    Cindy Sheehan will be in Germany this upcoming weekend to spread her message of retreat and defeat as she marches from a church in Landstuhl (a town where wounded American soldiers are treated) to a location outside Ramstein Airbase where she plans to set up another “Camp Casey.”

    But not everyone is planning to sit around and silently watch the German media fawn and drool over Ms. Sheehan. Several groups are organizing a peaceful counter demonstration to support American and Coalition soldiers and victory in Iraq. We strongly encourage all of our readers in Germany and surrounding areas to converge on Ramstein this Saturday to take part! Our website has already christened the demonstration site “Camp David.” We will be contacting other bloggers throughout Germany and Europe to spread the word.

    Check it out for details.