so, the guy upstairs wants to turn the air conditioning on when it's a high of two degrees. i'm an open-minded person, but that's really a signal that it's time to lose some weight for your own health. and i see no option but to turn the heat up to 25.

i get the feeling that the window is going to be open all summer.

i have no way to confirm or deny her claims, but this is precisely the same argument we heard about the humanitarian mission into afghanistan.

they're preparing us for a second invasion to get rid of the shia heretics. it's been building up for several years. it's hard to swallow, but deal with it.

i want to clarify: this might not be a boots-on-the-ground invasion, and if it is it will likely be an invasion of the whole region: both iraq and syria.

however, it's becoming clear that iraq is on the target list for regime change, however it happens to be done.

*the truth is that maliki has been on the list for a long time*

on the one hand, this is yet more evidence of how companies collude, rather than compete. and you know what? that's what my economics 100 text taught me, too.

in theory, it's in the interests of consumers for them to compete. but, it's simply not in the interests of companies to compete - not even in theory. so, why would they?

on the other hand, it opens up another question: is it in the interests of consumers to have workers compete for higher salaries? i mean, my empathy isn't particularly deep, here.

whole thing's a mess.

there's a bit of propaganda here, but i've been pushing this point: it's about saving face.

but i want to make something clear....

it's become apparent over the last few years that a prime function of these al qaeda groups (or at least some of them) is to stamp out secular and democratic movements. there is a pattern across the region over the last several years: whenever a secular uprising threatens the status quo, these groups appear to stamp it out and create an armed uprising for sharia law, instead. considering where the funding comes from, i can't consider that a coincidence...

so, what is al qaeda? it seems to be that a big part of what it is, right now, is a sort of saudi secret service (something part way between stazi and brownshirts) agency, that stamps out and co-opts threats to saudi hegemony in the region before they develop.

there's five parts to this. if you've been paying attention, it's a good summary. if you haven't, you actually might find it very surprising.

so, what we're seeing develop across the centre of the golden crescent is a fundamentalist islamic state backed by the saudis that is currently at war with both iraq and syria, along with the kurds and *also* militants backed by turkey and qatar, and is ultimately aligned against iran and any proxies (which would include hezbollah). by all appearances, this seems to be an attempt by the saudis to redraw the map of the area, and appears to be being resisted by just about everybody. in point form...

saudis: backing extreme al qaeda type groups that are fighting everybody to establish theocracy and eject iranian influence.

turks & qataris: support the same general goals as the saudis (and israelis) but reject that level of extremism, and back less fundamentalist groups to attempt to contain it. the qataris seem to be concerned about human rights, while the turks seem to be concerned about instability on their eastern border. they are currently in a proxy war with both the saudis and the iranians.

iran-syria-hezbollah-russia: form an alliance attempting to uphold the existing states in the region.

iraq: the saudis are targeting them as proxies for the iranians, while the americans seem to be less accusatory and interested in selling them arms. they're not yet in the russian alliance, but may end up in it if things continue.

egypt: conveniently preoccupied. current military leaders are saudi-backed. qataris (and perhaps turks) believe it to be tyrannical, and support muslim brotherhood.

israel: provided some air support. mostly quiet, though.

civilians, socialists and anarchists: fucked.

americans: nato-aligned with turkey. the turks are the most important military ally, not the israelis or saudis. large weapons supplier to both the saudis (and therefore the rebels) and the iraqis. the cynical way to look at it is that this is a designed policy to get them to kill each other. the americans seem to be arming several sides.

yet, the saudis seem to have greater ambitions than this. even if the americans succeed in containing them through arming iraq (if not syria), that itself is playing with fire. at some point, they're going to realize this, if they haven't already, and then the target once again becomes washington. as a short term strategy, it may work; as a long term strategy, it can only cement the certainty of a long war directed against north america. far from being brilliant, it's actually quite foolish. well, unless you only care about the next ten years...

this is the concern raised here, and it's a valid one.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/patrick-cockburn-alqaidas-second-act--the-full-fivepart-series-9208303.html