Don’t get me wrong. At this point, I think the choices left are between ‘Oh crap’, ‘Oh shit’, and ‘Oh no’. Or to put it in more elegant terms, there is no good choice. So, if it is given that the Democrats can offer no magic strategy we are left to find the ‘least worst’ option. The problem is, while some in the Democratic establishment understand this, quite a few do not appear to.

Maybe it’s only to be expected. The ‘troops out now’ option has been gathering strength thanks to spiraling violence and instability. From a political standpoint, there’s almost no capital to be gained from a perceived ‘stay the course’ strategy (Where anything other than ‘get the troops out’ is equated with ‘staying the course’) - especially if you’re a Democrat. Finding a Dem who’s willing to increase troop numbers in Iraq is like finding a Republican interested in meaningful lobbying reform. So I had high hopes when the top Generals in Iraq came to testify at the Capitol a couple of weeks ago. With a new atmosphere in Washington, would they finally come out and say they wanted troop cuts?

Well, not quite. In fact, General John Abizaid came before the Senate Armed Services Committee and rejected both the ‘let’s add more troops’ approach of John McCain and the ‘let’s get all the troops out now’ approach of Carl Levin, Democratic Senator and presumably the head of that same committee once the new Senate is sworn in when January rolls around. It’s hard to put a good face on the immediate troop withdrawal plan when the Generals themselves flatly reject it to your face - under oath and on camera, no less.

So, without the endorsement of the leaders on the ground, the possibility of recommending an immediate troop pullout is starting to recede (though given Bush has no need to worry about re-election and has that all important veto, it was never really a likely outcome in my mind). This of course leaves the Democrats - in fact, the government as a whole, let’s be honest - rooting around for some kind of solution they can present to the American public as offering a way forward. Given that there is no good solution, as previously noted, one must get very creative.

Both parties are now starting to lay the groundwork for the mess that is to come by shifting goals and assigning blame. Some Democrats have been extremely eager to start down this road, which strikes me as a position so deeply rooted in fantasy as to be laughable. Even the Republican neoconservative administrators didn’t have that much gall - mind you, given they gave the orders for disbanding the Iraqi military and carving up of the country’s power base, it would have been a bit hard for them to claim innocence for the result.

Iraq is a failed state at this point, which is a reality which has previously been too bleak to contemplate. Is it the fault of the Iraqi government? Perhaps they can do more than they have, but it is difficult to see how any government or leader could have done well under the circumstances. The American Administrator of Iraq, Paul Bremner failed. The followup appointed government failed. Now the elected government is failing. There is some irony in the fact that life under a dictator was, broadly speaking, safer for an average Iraqi than life under democracy. It makes democracy a tough sell, and shows that calls for the Iraqis to take more responsibility more about dodging blame than offering helpful strategy.

What to do? According to some experts, it’s time to pick a side among Iraq’s warring factions and be done with it. Of all the options, I think this is one likely to get a serious hearing, because on the surface it sounds reasonable. It has the attraction of sounding ‘realistic’ and offers a new way forward. Unfortunately, picking a side is fraught with even worse dangers than dealing with the security situation as it stands and will almost certainly accelerate the fragmentation of Iraq. In the absence of anything from the Democrats that accepts American fault for the current situation, such false pragmatism seems to be what we can expect in the coming months.

I don’t really know what I expected from the Democrats, to be fair to them. I certainly don’t think we’d be in Iraq now if the 2000 election had turned out differently, but that ship has long sailed. Either way, reminding the public of who got us into the mess is no longer enough. The Democrats have two years to prove that they can look beyond the blame and make some tough decisions, and trust in the electorate to remember they were voted into clean up someone else’s mess. So far, it’s a shaky start.

Nowadays private involvement in the war on terror has reached a point that the armed forces simply cannot complete their mission -without- the assistance of multinationals. It seems to be a very good time to be a private entrepreneur, but not so great of a time to be serving the country for simple patriotism. After all, there's no money in it. From recruiting sergeants to interrogators, we are seeing civilian faces. Is this good for the military? Is this good for the country? Personally, I have my misgivings.

Still, one can understand the need to ramp up force numbers in an emergency by hiring outside help. Many of the private firms are staffed by former special operations and intelligence officers with extensive links and experience in their area of operation, and so one can be assured that in theory at least, they can perform the task for which they are hired, whether that be securing an airport or protecting a VIP (I'll leave aside the fact that some of these security firms have very close ties to the GOP Administration and Bush white house - that should be no surprise to anyone). But what about rebuilding an entire nation? Surely that would be done by experts at the State Department and Pentagon?

You might think so, but this week the Washington Post published adaptations from a recent book that claimed the exact opposite was the case. Far from recruiting the most able, it was revealed from examining the record that in many cases political leaning was the determining factor. It is difficult to argue ability trumped ideology when a 24 year old was put in charge of rebuilding Iraq's commercial stock exchange. The Democratic party are now lining up at the gate to hold hearings on the matter. While they do not control the House or Senate, one can be sure that if they manage to take one (or both) bodies in November, such hearings will be at the top of the agenda. It remains to be seen what the American public - and the world, for that matter - will make of this. If it is proven that the current Administration did in fact fill the CPA with loyal staffers rather than pragmatic professionals, history will not be a kind judge - and nor should the American people.

If you have time, I invite you to check out the story's main link - the 'Gertrude Bell Project'. I certainly never heard her name before this story, but she seems to resonate through her diaries and papers, which contain hundreds of tidbits on the attitudes and politics of the times - not to mention being a joy to read just for her turn of phrase. As she commented in 1919, regarding British presence in India 'If India were not so much divided, Hindus against Islam, native princes against Nationalists, it would be a much graver matter, indeed if India had the homogeneous population of Egypt, we could not hold on at all.' (This was the old 'divide and conquer' rule; if you're invading a country, make sure they hate someone else more than they hate you, and then when they're both worn out, you take the spoils).

The ghosts of Empire, those men and women drawing lines in the sand and deciding the course of history, still have the power to reach across the years and affect us today. So the next time someone asks 'Why is Iraq such a mess?' - you can always blame the British Empire...

Speaking of name brand, who hasn't heard of viagra! I'm told it's wonderful. Rush Limbaugh thinks so too. From the Department of 'Well it seemed like a good idea at the time' comes the story that Rush was caught rushin' through the airport with bottles of the drug made out to another man. I am left puzzled as to why Limbaugh thought having his doctor make out the prescription to someone else - to keep matters quiet - wouldn't bite him hugely in the ass later, given his track record with prescription painkillers. Maybe he should have just embraced it and gone on the record as a spokesman instead. 'I'm Rush, and I stand tall and lean to the right - thanks to Viagra.' What worried me more wasn't the bogus prescription label so much as the fact someone, somewhere, is prepared to jump into bed with Rush Limbaugh.

Perhaps Ken had the last laugh after all.

I hope you all have a safe and happy Fourth - remember, be careful where you aim the fireworks, and you may want to stock up on the pepto-bismol if your plans include anything like Joey Chestnut's.

Oh, and last but not least - no, Independence Day is not celebrated in Britain. In case you were wondering (yes. I have actually been asked this).

The Democrats have been trying mightily to look squeaky clean of late, to make the most of their 'culture of corruption' slogan (they've finally started trying to come up with slogans). Unfortunately, a certain Congressman allegedly caught on tape discussing bribes, and then having bales of cash taken out of his freezer (I've heard of freezing your assets, but not like this) is proof enough, if any were needed, that corruption in politics knows no party line. If it's of any comfort, it seems that British Civil servants are setting the yardstick by which corruption should be measured. While cash for votes is unpleasant, we don't yet have Ted Kennedy leaving cups of vomit in Arlen Specter's office closet (and a breakdancing competition in the Senate would be worthy of recognition as a new and terrible crime against humanity).

Speaking of the Democrats, I'm getting more depressed at their prospects come November. It seems the Democrats are starting to coalecese around the platform that It's Okay To Not Have A Platform. While this is laudible from a democratic let's-get-everyone's-feelings-and-opinions sense, it leaves me feeling lacking, and I'm a sympathizer. It is Not Okay To Not Have An Easily Articulated Message. One thing Republicans do right is they have a message, they stick to it, and they run with it (that the message may be false, bad, dumb or just plain wrong does not hold them back - which again could be considered a strength. Consistency! Resilience! Steadfastness!).

Last but not least, Bush was in Hungary this week, on a state visit. He compared the Hungarian uprising of 1958 to Iraq's struggle of the present, and declared that the Iraqi people were inspired. I'm not sure what inspiration Iraq may take from a brutally oppressed nation's failure to win freedom while the world (including the United States) stood by and watched, but perhaps I'm missing something...

Well, Shakespeare was almost right – he just got the seasons reversed. That is if you’re looking at this quotation through the lens of someone having to buy gas this summer, which should be most of us. I first came over to the States in 1997. At that time, a gallon of regular was going for around about $1.00 a gallon, give or take. While it’s scary to me to consider that was almost ten years ago (time flies!) looking at the prices this morning made me blink anew – in today’s dollars, it hasn’t been as expensive in this country since the early 1980s. And the price isn’t forecast to go anywhere but up. Can America ever wean itself off of oil? Of course – if by ‘wean’ you mean ‘wun out’.

The United States has long enjoyed gas prices that would make people in the UK swoon for joy. To put things in a little perspective, at the time of writing, a gallon of unleaded regular is going for $6.46 on average, back home (ever wondered why we drive those tiny little cars with tiny little engines?). Americans are often mocked for their big, greedy cars and their excessive consumption. Not all of this is the fault of today’s consumer, though; urban sprawl and the sheer size of the place has led to a far greater reliance on the car over here, than in Europe. Back home a 100 mile commute per day would be considered remarkable; here, it is almost average. People here think nothing of driving two hours to pop over to see friends. A two hour drive for me growing up was an expedition!

The town my parents live in is approximately the same size as Portsmouth. The difference is it has (at the time I left, anyway) two competing bus lines and about four cab companies, and a light rail system linking it with Glasgow (Scotland’s largest city, about forty minutes away). Portsmouth, by comparison, has sidewalks. Well, on some streets. And some streets have streetlights, too! If you don’t have a car back home, you can walk to the town center on lit streets, with full paved sidewalks (admittedly, while avoiding drunken yobs who will seek to relieve you of valuables); or call a cab, or take a bus. Over here, you can wait about two hours for a cab to find you, or you drive. Everywhere. America, in general, is not a pedestrian based society. Even those at the lower end of the income scale have at least one car – that’s not a symbol of largesse, but just a reflection of raw need. No car means no job.

To see Bush today deciding to take a stand on ‘high gas prices’ was a source of much amusement for me. Apparently, severe instability in the Middle East, insurgents in the Niger delta, brewing conflict between Chad and Sudan, Venezuelan antipathy, rampant shortsighted greed on the part of the energy conglomerates and an increasing energy demand from the likes of India and China aren’t as influential to gas prices as a few scurrilous station owners marking up prices. Good to know that we’re taking the situation well in hand, George. Oh, and allow them to make more polluting gas, too. That’ll help lower costs – or at least improve profit margins. And hey - just where is that Iraq oil anyway? You know. That oil that was supposed to pay for reconstruction? Ah, well.

What most politicians realise – and yet cannot say – is that America (and most every Western nation) is locked into the global economy. One cannot just ‘take’ the oil anymore, as was done 100 years ago – the taking is too costly, and you’d be fighting Russia, China and India for it anyway – and nor is there enough to go around. Consequently, prices will continue to rise until there reaches a breaking point; when enough citizens have to choose between driving to work and eating, perhaps we’ll finally see some movement on sustainable nationwide mass-transit and move to renewable energy (or a complete breakdown of society and people driving Mad Max tanker trucks around – my money’s on this option). For now though, there’s no political hay to be made by telling people they have to drive less, in smaller cars, or telling industries they have to clean up and be efficient – or heaven forbid, telling Congress that they have to start working together on the problem instead of blaming the other side.

Is DeLay the proverbial canary in the coalmine for the Republican chances in November? I think he just might be. After all, it's not been a good two weeks for the Republicans, especially if you're taking the long view. What with DeLay toppling and Abramhoff sentenced and promising to name names I think we're in for a juicy summer of revelations. The best bit of the news story was the Judge ordering Abramhoff to report to jail in 90 days; and then the prosecution asking for him to remain free for six months, because he's cooperating so nicely. It's one nice thing about such crime; it's very rare that you see someone keeping to any kind of code of silence. Who will be next to be snarled up? Newsweek asked that question, and made a fairly persuasive case for suggesting Conrad Burns had best be practicing his defense skills. What with DeLay's former aide Tony Rudy also taking the stand, the dominos are still toppling. I sure hope so. One particular lobbying job of theirs sufficiently raised my hackles; arguing for legislation that would enable garment manufacturers in the Marianas Islands (a Commonwealth of the U.S.) to claim 'made in USA' on clothing, but without respecting U.S. laws that govern wages and immigration law. The next time you buy a 'Made in USA' t-shirt that was actually made in a remote pacific atoll by some kid earning $1 an hour, you can thank Rudy.

Thankfully, things are going far beyond Burns, Rudy and DeLay; a treasure trove of emails is revealing not only the spread of influence peddling, but how blatant it was. Washington has always been a town of wheeling and dealing of course, but seeing things dragged into the light does make me wonder if future staffers will be required to write meeting minutes in longhand and destroy the papers - or perhaps eat them, if caught in the act. If the emails are to be believed though, the thing that strikes me as ironic is the sums of money involved. $2000 here, $5000 there. Barely enough to fund a good attack ad on a weblog, much less fund a campaign. And it's this level of cash that might ultimately sink the lobbying system? Fat chance, really. As the Boston Globe noted, the current widely touted reforms are little more than window dressing. Washington runs on money, and neither party is going to occupy what scarred moral high ground remains if it means giving up those sweet, sweet campaign donations.

Either way, the Republican party is certainly eating the brunt of the publicity on this issue and it's showing. They may hope that with DeLay gone, the worst is perhapsy behind them. After all, even if he's indicted, he will have stepped down, and can be safely dismissed (or perhaps given a Presidential Medal of Freedom in a few years) to the lecture circuit - and perhaps, pulpit. Apparently after all this, the true reason he's being hounded is because the liberals hate Christians. Still, I'm sure the good Lord will provide. Let's just hope he doesn't remember that thing about the money changers and the temple - or that rich man, camel, and needle's eye thing.

Yes, with DeLay gone, the outlook can only get bright-- wait, what's this? Scooter Libby filing court papers that allege Cheney and Bush were the source of leaks of intelligence reports to make the Administration's case against Iraq? But didn't Bush say he'd fire the source of any leaks? Oooops. If Republicans want to take the summer off to just go and drink beer by the pool, I totally understand. Just be glad the Democratic spin machine is about as strong as the desire for true lobbying reform in Washington* or you'd actually be in real trouble.

* That would be to say, not very strong.

The House Bill, passed in December, was quite hard-line by any measure. Not only did it put requirements on Employers to more thoroughly vet their employees, it increased funding for enforcement; would make being illegal a felony; criminalizes any aid to illegal immigrants (including aid provided by charities or church groups, from food to shelter to medical care). It was also happily dancing in the land of the sugarplum fairy as it envisioned detaining all illegal immigrants in federal custody pending trials or deportation (as opposed to the current procedure where such people are simply given a court date on a piece of paper, and asked nicely to show up to be deported - somehow, not many of them show up). The President's plan for a guest-worker program was rejected out of hand, which is quite the thing for a Republican-led Congress to do - but then this is an election year, and Georgie won't be around too much longer.

The Senate bill passed last night was by comparison to the House bill far more conciliatory. It offers provisions not only for guest workers to gain a path to full citizenship, but also a way for those already in the country to get into the queue (albeit the BACK of the queue, with extra fines and back taxes and background checks to pass). The bill passed the Senate committee with the votes of all 8 Democratic members, and 4 of the 10 Republicans, enough to put it over the top - and further displaying where the division lines are drawn. The real fun starts now, as both bills have to be reconciled with each other before going before the President. It should be fun to watch. And boy, I'm glad I have a green card already.

What surprised me the most in this whole debate this year has been the mass protests we've seen in California and elsewhere. Aren't mass protests what those crazy Europeans do? Well, five hundred thousand might not count as a general strike, but it's still pretty impressive. In years past, those most affected by the debate - the illegal workers themselves - tend to shy away from publicity, rocking the boat, or anything that would bring attention, really. It has the potential to kickstart the debate into a new level.

Business groups are also standing in support of immigrant's rights groups. Surprise you? It shouldn't; they have traditionally tended to be in favor of anything that meant they got more cheap labor with no real need to check documents too closely. As illegals are more easily exploited than any other sector of the workforce, they're great to hire! You don't have to pay a living wage, or benefits, and you can just fire them at will. Even better though, because you can do that, it makes it easier to offer lower wages to actual Americans, too! After all, if Jose will do your job for $8.00 an hour, that means you'd better do it for that - or less! Competition and capitalism at its finest. It is interesting to see Republicans actually opposing immigration on the grounds it depresses wages for lower-income American workers (a notion debunked by a recent paper from the American Immigration Law Foundation); I guess the notion of having companies pay a living wage in the first place is nicely antiquated.

The entire immigration issue does leave a bitter taste in my mouth. Mainly because it seems so easy for companies to relocate out of State - or even nation - to find the best location. The most tax free, with easiest environmental regulation, loose labor protection laws and highest profit potential. Try and do that as an individual though, and you'll find it's not so easy. Apparently free trade doesn't trickle down to the trade of your skills for a decent wage, if that means crossing a border.

For the most part, those in this country illegally are actually working, making money to either support families here, or their country of origin. It makes a hell of a lot more sense to have them legal and paying more taxes and be subject to the same protections and responsibilities, than it does to pretend erecting more fences is going to stop people wanting to come here to seek a better life for themselves and their families. Ultimately, if you're anti-immigration, you're rejecting everything that built this country over the years.

Is the criticism of the deal legitimate? I personally have not seen so many politicians scramble to be on the right side of an issue since Jack Abramoff's fall from grace. With even a cursory glance at the evidence, very little supports the self-serving rhetoric that swirled the halls of power. US Port operations, like those of many industrialized nations, are run by many international companies. Some of those companies are American. Some are European. Some are Chinese. Personally if I had to worry about a foreign owned entity, it would be one that may be partially controlled by the Chinese military. Not because I don't like the Chinese - their crab rangoon is the best - but that military involvement in supposed commercial entities just worries me, no matter the source.

To hear talk of the deal, people I spoke to seemed to think that at any second, New Jersey was about to be struck by a tsunami of robe-wearing sandal-flopping men riding camels around Newark, spitting cloves in the street and mocking the Great Satan of America. Little wonder that opinion polls put support for the deal at around 17%. When a few facts were brought into the picture - for example that the US Coast Guard controls port security along with other Federal and State agencies - opinion changed from outright rejection to wariness and requests for more details. Which is a much smarter way to approach the issue. Unfortunately a lot of the acceptance or rejection seem to split along party lines at least among the populace, if not politicians.

Right up until the end of last week, I was wondering if Bush would actually have to exercise a veto for the first time in his Presidency. Congress attached a rider derailing the Port purchase to a bill that provided funds for Katrina relief and Iraq; a bill that Bush would have had a very hard time throwing back. Unfortunately this nailbiter came to a very anticlimactic end as the company at the heart of the controversy announced it would transfer its US assets to an as yet unnamed "US entity". The deal has yet to be worked out, and so there may yet be controversy. If the company divests its interests cleanly the matter is likely resolved, for now. Instead, they could attempt to shuffle paperwork to satisfy the letter, if not the spirit of their statement and then we can look forward to it flaring up again.

While the GOP has been split along free-trade vs. security lines (two uneasy bedfellows at the best of times) it has been up to the Democratic party to attempt to make hay with a brazen shamelessness that would make the most red-blooded GOP spinmaster proud. Many of the luminaries of the party, among them presidential hopefuls, have been loudly declaiming their opposition to the deal to talk show hosts, newspapers, television, and soon, bumper stickers. Polls seem to indicate it may have worked. It is fortunate for politicians in this era that the average voter could tell you more about their local baseball franchise than matters of state*.

It's very depressing that the Democratic Party still has no coherent national message after six years in opposition, so I can understand you have to take your shots where you can. Better hope Bush is caught on camera eating a baby between now and November; with that plus Iraq, plus the Medicare disaster, plus the deficit, plus the economy, plus the widening gap between rich and poor, plus the lack of affordable healthcare, plus the failures of No Child Left Behind, plus the lobbying scandal, plus the bribery scandal, plus the Tom Delay scandal, plus this ports deal... you might pick up a couple of seats!

Not that I'm bitter about your ineptitude lately, or anything...

* This upsets me not because people don't share my morbid interest in politics, but just that they like baseball. Watch more rugby, people. Now THAT's a sport.

In 2003, Britain enacted the Extradition act. This was brought in without a great deal of Parliamentary review and with the stated goals of making it easier to extradite suspected terrorists to trial in foreign countries. The concern was that people could fight their deportation in the courts for months and years, tying up resources and money, rather than volunteering to go to face trial like good little terrorists. However, the act itself didn't specify only acts of terrorism; rather, it was any crime that could be punished with a prison term in both Britain and the country requesting extradition (in essence, you can't be extradited for something that is not a crime in Britain). This laid the table for a much broader possible application of the law.

The case of these three bankers is a great illustration of just how far this Act can reach. I don't know just how fascinating you find white collar crime, but here's the deposition of an FBI Field Agent on the matter. It covers the alleged offenses of the three men in great detail. To summarize, it is claimed that they created a holding company in order to take advantage of asset transfers between Enron and the British bank National Westminster in order to divert funds to themselves, in violation of various British banking laws. The offenses took place variously in London, the Cayman Islands, and New York. Thanks to a part of it being done in Wall Street, that puts these men within reach of the US Government to face trial in Texas.

Civil rights groups are protesting this decision. Not because they're pro-embezzlement, but because they recognize this for what it is; the US Government is engaged in a high-wire act to convict Lay and Skilling. If they can bring additional charges and perhaps encourage a plea deal with the British Bankers that will implicate Lay or Skilling, that helps their primary goal of putting the two big dogs behind bars - but given that their alleged offenses occured in not one but three countries - and the 'victims' of said offenses would have largely been the British bank and its shareholders - it seems a bit of a reach to drag them across the Atlantic to stand trial in Houston, when a trial in London would surely suffice.

This isn't the first time that British businessmen have run afoul of the new global cooperation in the war on terror. Last year another financier was charged under the act and put under threat of extradition for crimes that (if proven) largely occured in Britain rather than the United States. The British business community is getting very antsy at this turn of events; at this point, any company executive whose business dealings brush on US jurisdiction is now at risk of extradition. Ironically, this may be the impetus needed to amend the law. Nobody really minds when people are imprisoned without charge in Guantanamo for years - they're terrorists! But start going after White Guys With Money and the whole dance changes tempo. If there's one thing Rich White Guys With Money don't like, it's being dragged into court. That can lead to being turned into a White Guy With No Money, which isn't nearly as much fun.

Surely though, with all this easy cooperation between the UK and US in criminal cases, this also means London can now demand American businessmen (or terrorists) stand trial in Britain for crimes that occured there? Well, possibly - but it's far from easy. The final straw for most civil libertarians and commentators on the whole affair is the lack of reciprocity in the deal. When British law enforcement wish to extradite a US citizen, they must provide what is known as a prima facie case - that is providing US agencies with evidence on the accused that would meet the legal burden of proof of a 'reasonable standard of guilt'. The US on the other hand, need only show that the person has been accused of a crime that, if convicted, would result in a jail sentence of at least twelve months in either country.

The US is often accused of double standards around the world; it makes use of 'rendition' programs to spirit accused individuals to torture and uncertain fate without the need of a trial; it supports democratic elections until those elections result in inconvenient results; it supports International Courts until those courts ask for jurisdiction over American troops; and in this case, is quite happy to demand extradition of foreigners, while not offering the same in exchange. Of course, I can't blame the US Government for this one entirely - they didn't pass the Act. In fact, I should thank them; their zeal in going after Lay and Skilling and using the NatWest trio as additional ammunition may just provide the impetus needed back home to get the Act repealed. Then that awkward little thing called 'proof' may be needed before shipping citizens overseas to an uncertain fate.

As explained by Carsten Juste, Editor of Jyllands-Posten, the seeds of the dispute were laid when researching a children's book on the life of the Prophet. Somewhat unlikely roots, you may agree. When this book was being written, the author attempted to find an artist to illustrate the work. No artist could be found that was willing to put their name to the book; they would only agree to anonymously contribute, largely for fear of hostile reaction.

They obviously felt this was worthy of report. Why should artists in a country that is not an Islamic theocracy feel bound by the tenets of that - or any - religion? Do artists hesitate to illustrate figures from any other religion? State censorship is one thing; self censorship is another. Given the West's long fondness for political and satirical cartoons throwing acid barbs at every public figure imaginable from God to Britney Spears, it seems to follow that major religious figures will, sooner or later, be lampooned. This is not to say cartoons do not cause controversy; they do. Controversy seems to be a mild way of describing current events as they stand, however.

Islamic integration in Europe has been fraught with tension, particularly since the events of 9/11. A number of European countries like France have considerable minority Islamic populations. It was France that created new rules for schoolchildren, banning most public religious dress in schools, with considerable public support. Although it was ostensibly aimed at all religious symbols, the recommendation was largely seen as attempting to counter Islamic fundamentalism and enforce a secular policy. The riots in France that shook the country in the fall of 2005 had their roots in the tension between immigrants of a mainly muslim background and the greater French society.

Perhaps such tensions exacerbated feelings in France, when French publications reprinted the cartoons earlier this month in the name of freedom of expression. They were joined by news outlets across Europe. It was at this point that the original intent of the cartoons - exploring self censorship among illustrators - morphed into something much larger, pitting Western style freedom of speech against religious tenet - though freedom of speech is somewhat misleading, as most European countries have no such 'constitutional' right. This is a much bigger subject and much more prone to hijack by demagogues who are only too pleased to start anti-US protests over the affair.

So far the most surprising thing to me about this whole affair has been the retiscence of the US Press to actually publish the images in question. It is somewhat ironic given the protests have been more focused on anti-US sentiments than the true origin of the cartoons. I can't think that antipathy towards the US in the Middle East and across the greater Islamic world could be much lower at this point even if the cartoons were front page on the Wall Street Journal. Even cartoonists are divided, and few seem to want to put their head above the parapet (or minaret).

Personally, I can't say I blame them. Hazard pay or fatwa insurance isn't usually part of the benefits package of a syndicated editorial cartoonist.

How have things spiraled so far, so fast? The digital age. When riots can be propagated by text message and civil protests organized by instant messenger, rumors fly a lot faster than any official response - most of which are ignored anyway. If anything worries me about the whole affair, this does; almost any controversy can now be shaped and molded to focus public anger on something convenient (the United States and the West at large) and away from anything inconvenient (lack of democratic participation in many Muslim countries*).

In the end, the willingness of the European press to publish cartoons-and-be-damned gets a certain admiration from me. It's certainly more than I've seen from most US press so far. I am not particularly religious, though I do try to respect the fact my fellow men and women may hold such beliefs; but their right to belief stops where my right to say what I think about that belief without being put in fear for my life starts. Ultimately, if they're right, I burn in hell anyway. So what does it matter if I draw a very bad cartoon before I go?

In closing, I'm not going to link to the cartoons here, mainly because this isn't my website. However, clever little internet user that you are, I will give you one hint : Starts with 'G', and ends in 'oogle'. And if you can't find the cartoons with that, you don't deserve to see them.

They really weren't all that funny anyway, come to think of it. Dilbert is better. And that may be the final irony. If they're going to start World War Three, they should at least make me laugh.

* Of course, when I say democracy, I mean democracies that the West has already endorsed as being appropriate for public consumption. These inconvenient Palestinian elections that Hamas won aren't REAL democracy, right? Democracy only counts when you vote for who we want you to vote for, kids.

The FISA program, oft-derided by the President and his team, provides for a secret court that meets in secret to provide secret warrants for secret surveillance to secretly listen in on foreign elements secret conversations (it is very secret). The main thrust of the debate is not so much listening in on Evil Foreigners - which everyone agrees is important - but that the tools given to the security services are not then turned around and used to spy on citizens of the United States. This topic reminded me of revelations in Britain in the 1980s, where MI:5 (the British Domestic Security Service) was found to have kept secret files on labor leaders, left wing activists, and others deemed a possible Threat To Our Way Of Life. In this country, we need only look back to the Hoover files to see what happens where an Agency is given carte blanche to poke around at their whim. FISA does not offer a great deal of protection in this regard - at least, certainly not public oversight - but it does give Congress a means to determine what is being done in the name of the public, and by whom.

The Adminstration's opionion on FISA and surveillance has changed in the years since 9/11. As an article in the Los Angeles Times reports today, the lawyers working for the White House actually -opposed- lowering the legal standard for intercepting traffic. This is the opposite of what they want today of course, which is lower requirements, using the 'We are at war, just trust me' approach to swaying the argument in their favor. Personally, I am not particularly swayed. Given that the current amorphous war on terror has no determined end whatsoever, the notion that we must shelve all criticism and questioning of our leaders because 'we are at war' swiftly translates to 'do not question those in power, ever, because that is bad for the country'. Not exactly the principles upon which this country was founded.

Congress is debating new limits on spying in general with Democrat and Republican party members expressing unease at the decisions taken, among them Arlen Specter. The debate is gloomily predictable, though it does have some wonderful quotes, among them John Kerry's principled stand that "What [Rove is] trying to pretend is somehow Democrats don't want to eavesdrop appropriately to protect the country. That's a lie," Kerry said. "We're prepared to eavesdrop wherever and whenever necessary in order to make America safer." The growing debate that is diverging lawmakers along party lines isn't so much that surveillance is needed (everyone is pro-bug) but that whether or not the Bush Administration broke the law by brushing aside the FISA requirements with reference to the Congressional resolutions passed shortly after 9/11.

If you were to believe some of the heated rhetoric on this, you might even think that Congress would consider impeaching Bush. Senate Democrats are increasingly dubious about the rationale for bypassing Congressional oversight, deeming it a slap in the face to Congress - which it manifestly is. What confuses me is why this should surprise anyone; Bush certainly has no record of going out of his way to 'appease' anyone, especially when he's convinced he's right in the first place. Impeachment of course is about as likely as Jack Abramoff winning Washington DC Personality of the Year. While it's alright to impeach a President for lying about interns during a war on terror, it's okay to give them a pass when they creatively reinterpret laws, I suppose.

What does the general public make of this? Polls so far have been mixed. The most entertaining one by far was run by the New York Times. I will leave the full analysis to you, gentle reader, but will share with you two findings that made me laugh. Firstly, that

"53 percent of Americans approved of Mr. Bush's authorizing eavesdropping without prior court approval "in order to reduce the threat of terrorism"; 46 percent disapproved. When the question was asked stripped of any mention of terrorism, 46 percent of those respondents approved, and 50 percent said they disapproved."

Proof positive that repeating 'Terrorism' over and over is a perfectly viable way of swaying people. The winner by a landslide though was

"In one striking finding, respondents overwhelmingly supported e-mail and telephone monitoring directed at "Americans that the government is suspicious of;" they overwhelmingly opposed the same kind of surveillance if it was aimed at "ordinary Americans."

Sadly, what differentiates ordinary Americans from suspicious Americans was never fully outlined. But that's okay. You can trust the government to make the decision for you. Right?

Scandal seems to be a cyclical phenomenon in Washington. It is approximately ten years since Newt Gingrich's 'Republican Revolution' swept the House with a call for less corruption, smaller government, and a Contract With America. Very grand and impressive claims of a new start, but after ten years at the trough the likes of Jack Abramoff always seem to return. And why not? The money is excellent, it's indoor work, you get to schmooze with the rich and powerful, and best of all, since you're behind the scenes you get all of the trappings without the accountability - at least, until you get too greedy even for the beltway.

Catching the ear of the powerful and connected has always been part and parcel of politics. What makes things slightly different in this case is the extent to which lobbyists and the GOP leadership were intertwined, to the point that lobbyists were offering highly paid jobs to personal staffers (and family members) of the House leadership, and being -consulted- on proposed legislative changes by Representatives, to boot, rather than the other way around. Corruption of a single official such as Randy Cunningham is easy to pass off as a 'bad apple'. It's much harder to do this when the collusion is in the open and not only is it not prevented - it's almost encouraged as 'the way we do business here'.

As scandals go, this one has the potential to be quite a doozy. Not only has it single-handedly caused Tom Delay to abandon all hopes of recovering his leadership position, it has caused quite a few sleepless nights in the capitol among other representatives (and no doubt, their staffs). The public are not impressed in the least, and it just may be that the newly exposed greed at the top will topple the GOP from power in a manner the Democrats could only wish they could achieve. No doubt they will attempt to make as much hay from this as possible, but it is somewhat ironic that the GOP are the ones who have ultimately damaged their own standing.

Personally, I'm not surprised by it. The old saw that power corrupts holds as true today as it ever had; those who seek power root out corruption, while those who have power seek to maintain it. It's astonishing how things suddenly become palatable once you're the party in charge - things that while in opposition were the grist for the mill of attack politics. Politicians scratching their heads and wondering why the general public thinks 'a pox on both their houses' don't have to look all that far for the reasons. The incestuous relationship between Lobbyists, Politicians, their relatives and staff all combine to form a conflict of interest a mile high - or at least, the length of K Street.

Will this scandal bring down some House members? I'm looking forward to see if it does. In the meantime, the GOP is starting a race for the new House Leader and making earnest sounds about 'cleaning up the lobbying game'. House Majority Whip Roy Blunt is pushing hard for the post, while calling for new limits on lobbying. This is somewhat ironic, given his own son is a lobbyist and he has amassed a political operation to rival anything Tom DeLay amassed; whether the American people will be impressed by the fox earnestly declaring that these chickens are safe with him, is as yet an open question. Whoever wins, it seems likely that the winner will be as enmeshed in the 'new system' as anybody else on the Hill - with its inevitable impact on public trust in government, and those who govern.