UN General Assumbly 2008: Day 1

Black Gold Magic=Blue Magic

What used to be greenback magic is no longer. Jay-Z now has incorporated a plain and simple truth into his post-retirement MO. Flossing a phat wad of 500 Euro notes, he too realizes what most truly astute financial gurus acknowledged long ago. The dollar's supremacy as the world's top foreign reserve currency is fast fading. In his Blue Magic video, Jay-Z reiterates a truth that I revealed one year ago after having read a fabulous book called Petrodollar Warfare, which had typically been labeled as a collection of conspiracy theories.

The slippage in the value of the dollar has been long awaited in many economic circles. Due to irresponsible tax cuts pushed through by the Bush administration and due to a fiscally reckless war machine, America is pissing away its financial health. We used to be a sound fiscal entity with a decent credit rating. W has done a far worse job than even the average American (with horrendously bad judgment in the credit department) would do. While the debt may eventually be easier to pay off, and while the sinking dollar may help out the gargantuan trade deficit, it will serve ultimately to decrease the overall standard of living in the US because it diminishes our capacity to purchase goods produced in other countries. Since demand for dollars is a huge part of why the US indeed has such a high standard of living in the first place, this whole mess is irreversible. The vicious cycle is unleashed.

Petrodollars in decline
There are voices on the geopolitical circuit demanding that oil no longer simply be denominated in dollars. Iran and Venezuela are leading this anti-petrodollar charge. Ultimately, pricing oil with a basket of currencies would tremendously decrease the demand for dollars, pushing the currency even further into the ground. Reserve banks throughout the world now believe that holding a basket of currencies will best insulate them from the risk associated with putting all their pennies/centimes in one basket. While I know whom to blame for horrendous fiscal mismanagement in my country, I, along with every other American who relies on the strength of the dollar to sustain purchasing power, will suffer the harsh consequences. The oil companies, on the other hand, are laughing at Blue Magic all the way to the bank.

MTV Arabia
For his part, Jay-Z deserves some air time on MTV's new Arabic language channel, which just went on the air this past weekend! Audiences in the Middle East will better understand the extent to which cultural norms reflect geopolitical truths. Jay-Z may be no Ben Bernanke, but his dough stacks speak far louder than any Fed Chairman's voicebox.

King Nasrallah and Sheikh Ahmedhaniyassad

The iconic power of the men who currently lead fundamentalist Islamic movements in the Middle East is incredible. They are atop a system of clan-based rule over sheepish masses, in which a valiant attempt is made to capitalize on anti-Western sentiments, for good or for ill. By and large, the people who favor these leaders over more pacifist, reasonable, and moderate alternatives make such a radical political choice because of a deeply rooted tribalistic mentality that pits pan-Islamist supranational ideology against the West in all its incarnations. The Arabian tribal concept and its loyalty to the Meccan core is at the heart of this international movement, but in many ways the movement has become more of a political alliance than a religious quest. Religious justification for allegiance to the various manifestations of Iranian sphere of influence has replaced the dominance of Arab supranationalism/pan-Arabism as the region's most potent alternative to Western-style government and society.

In an age when all Middle Eastern societies believe that they are under siege from one direction or another, many countries crave a leader who functions as an omnipotent or least symbolically impregnable father of the people. As a patriarch who exercises power in an authoritarian and often arbitrary manner, the superman reigns supreme. Is this the fundamental nature of Arab political culture? Are Arab societies truly not ready for open democracy? Is it an excessively cultural relativist judgment to state that some societies merely need this form of rule? Posting gigantic images of Assad, Nasrallah, and Ahmadinejad across Syria, Shiite areas of Lebanon gives these places a sense of order and bestows them with the notion that some strongman is protecting them from the malevolence of Israel, Christians, and the West in general.
One notable phenom that pertains to this wrangling about loyalties and constantly shifting allegiances is the Shi'ite-Sunni rift. It seems that most of this intra-Islamic conflict is about the political might of Iran, not about theological differences. Most Shi'ites, at least in Iraq and Lebanon, have deep historical ties to Iran, either because they became Shi'ite due to Iranian missionary activity or because they have ancestral ties to Iran. Much of the current geopolitical struggle between the icons of Shia Islam and the West is over the tense Cold War developing between Iran and its proxies and the U.S. and its satellites. The influence of Sunni-inspired fundamentalism is perhaps waning. One curious phenom is that Palestinians themselves often refer to Hamas as the Shi'ites or Persians merely due to the source of the movement's funding, suggesting that the region's struggles are often more a function of material conflict and Machivellian political alliances rather than a truly ideological or religious clash.
As far as these tribalistic leaders go, the masses might be right to support movements that actually work towards their interests in terms of social welfare, physical defense, and national pride. In most of these cases, the propertied and educated elites will not support the people's Islamic choice because they have a vested interest in propping up regimes that are more friendly to their materialist inclinations and that maintain their bourgeois status. This is not to say that wealthy scions throughout the Islamic world do not support scores of Islamist movements. However, in the cases of Iran, Lebanon, and Gaza, it is evident that these movements possess true power because the masses of uneducated, disenfranchised citizens have found their voice. But, at the end of the day, the Islamist alternative typically is reckless in offending the West and places the masses in even greater danger. Aggressively Islamist forces often receive the terrorist appellation, thereby endangering their supporters in the international clash of civilizations.

Palestine, Lebanon, and Iraq are failed states that do not function as unified national entities in the international arena. The national governments maintain sovereignty over, at most, half of the country's territory. Moreover, these places are wracked by the regional tug-of-war that divides their land into sectors that are controlled by various regional superpowers. Each has a contingent that leans to the West and a contingent that leans towards Teheran and/or Mecca. The power of iconic strongmen in these societies is quite strong. Perhaps some societies simply need to be ruled by some supermen and perhaps other countries (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Israel) are entitled to seal themselves off from these other relatively backward and fundamentalist places. Does Gaza simply need to Hamas to control Gazan society and provide security, meaning, and legitimacy to the government? Must the world continue to boycott governments that are favored by the people and are thus a legitimate democratic choice? Maybe it is time that the neocon gospel is discredited once and for all. Democracy is not the goal, and democracy exists nowhere. Certain societies have the right to retain anti-Western prejudice, as long as the fundamental stalemate exists between the dueling expansionist/hegemonic Western and Islamist ideologies.

As Assyrian as the Syrian Sun

Syria is a little bit creepy on the inside. While the internal security situation is such that foreign visitors have nothing to fear upon entering the country, the mysterious workings of the regime and the oddly simplistic people make for an entirely peculiar Syrian travel experience.

Those folks with American travel documents entering on land from Lebanon can expect to wait somewhere between four and twelve hours to gain entry. The local border authorities are required to fax the visa application to the Foreign Ministry in Damascus, and the process is elongated by the politically-driven desire to make Americans wait for the bureaucratic process to unfold as slowly as possible.

On the whole, Syria is a mismanaged nation, whose infrastructure and economy would be better served by a more enlightened regime. However, at the same time, the internal security situation is relatively stable for the region. Therefore, the dominance of the Ba’athist Party makes for a rather safe society, albeit a nation that is much ill-served by a regressive, totalitarian government.

Moreover, from what most people who are familiar with Syria claim, the nation is a largely closed society, and the vast majority of Syrians are undereducated. A lack of books keeps the populace simple and in check. Because the people are easily controlled, the patriotic sentiments of the masses allow the society to push forward through the ages. Without the drastic and draconian brainwashing techniques employed by the ruling class, the Syrian society would disintegrate. This is not to say that the citizens would never be better served by a more open, liberal, tolerant, and Western-oriented regime. However, it is apparent that the social controls that exist in Syria are effective and do indeed prevent the society from becoming like failed national enterprises such Iraq and Lebanon, with all due respect to people whose loyalties lie with those nation-states.

Generally, the Syrians appear to be effortlessly kind people. Although their living situation is decidedly 3rd World and although most Syrians cannot speak English, the Syrians gladly befriend Western visitors and take a significant interest in showing them around. To their credit, most Syrians opt not to base their opinion of Americans on propaganda spewed at them by their government-controlled media. The problem between Syria and the U.S. is clearly based on friction between the governments and is a function of international political alliances and the balance of power, rather than true animosities between Syrian and American people.

Due to the persistent Iranian influence on Syrian international diplomacy, global orientation, and cultural disposition, the giant Shiite Persian mammoth is omnipresent in Damascus, especially in the form of Shiite pilgrims. One hears only Farsi and very little Arabic in perhaps the most architecturally esteemed center of worship in the Muslim world, the Ummayad Mosque. Iranian visitors no doubt outnumber American visitors by some power of 10.

The tug-of-war between Iran and the United States has left Syria diplomatically bombarded by contrasting interest groups. So far, the Iranians have managed to keep their lap dog faithful. At almost 20 million heads (and growing rapidly), Syria is becoming a force to be reckoned with, even if it does not make decisions of its own accord. Though the Syrian leader was previously an ophthalmologist who was practicing in Britain before his father died, the parliament reduced the minimum presidential age by six years to accommodate the younger Assad’s ascent to the authoritarian post. At the helm of the Axis of Evil associate state, Assad nonetheless does not want to shepherd his quasi-pariah state into full international isolation.



Traditionally, the Alawite minority (at around 11% of the population) was propped up by the French colonial overlords. They still form the core of the political ruling class of the nation. In addition, Christian Syrians, who comprise about 10% of the population, form the core of the country’s merchant caste. There are still several Christian villages in Syria where the inhabitants speak Aramaic, the language of Jesus Christ. 1 in 10 Syrian citizens is a Kurd. Armenians, Druze, Palestinians, Bedouins, and most recently, Iraqis, are also major ethnic groups present in Syria.

The elder Assad massacred upwards of 10,000 Muslim Brotherhood sympathizers in 1982 in an effort to keep Islamists at bay. The regime’s pan-Arabism, once having led the Ba’athist government into a bi-national Arabist state with Egypt, has been put into question by a rivalry with Saudi Arabia and an alliance with the Shiite giant. Syria’s identification as an Arab society is perhaps not that thorough, given the region’s mixed ancient history of Sumerian, Akkadian, Assyrian, Aramaean, Hebrew, and Canaanite influence, just to name a few of the peoples who have lived within the contemporary borders of Syria. As far as its Lebanese neighbors are concerned, the relationship has become a bit hairy. Though its intelligence workers have essentially departed, there are herds of Syrian workers in Lebanon who function as temporary workers.

The future of Syria's position in the region depends upon its willingness to reform and to refrain from allowing Iran to dictate its every move. In all likelihood, it will regain much of the Golan Heights in the near future. Many folks in Syria mention suggestions here and there of how to foster a lasting peace with the southwestern enemy. Luckily, a war is no longer in store for this summer. However, a serious conflict is more than likely to occur prior to the end of the American president's term of office. Syria could suffer gravely if it plays the ignorant antagonist in this international chess match. Long live Assyria.

3 Top Heeb Vids

Yalla Ya Nasrallah





Hashish, Hashish, Hashish





Push Da Button

World War IV Rumbles Onward

I must give credit to the neocons (and certain paleocons such as Huntington) for recognizing the onslaught of World War IV. Commentators most frequently compare this World War to World War II, due to the supposed similarities between fascism and Islamo-fascism, among other things. In the buildup of the American empire over the course of the past 100 years, each successive World War has served to bring in enemy nations from the cold, domesticate them, and therefore ensure their dutiful participation in the Empire (as termed by Hardt and Negri) in the political, economic, and military spheres. American military basing went from being limited to the Caribbean and near Pacific to becoming a globally present phenom that has taken root from Djibouti to Jalalabad. The World War IV in which we are now embroiled has become the dominant paradigm with which to conceptualize global affairs. Perhaps we have fanned the flames of war by means of bellicose semantics, yet whether normatively good or bad, the war is here regardless.

Recent declarations by outgoing Secretary-General of the United Nations Kofi Annan buttress this point. He emphasized the centrality of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the morass of events within the Middle East. Though internationalists and leftists typically don't employ the same semantics as reactionary folks in qualifying the world they perceive, it has become evident that that clash between the West and Islam is truly of gargantuan proportions. For one, as I heard Colin Powell declare in Baltimore a few days ago, the United States was in need of a new enemy at the end of the Cold War. Without the Communists to orientalize and stigmatize, the American yearning for global domination needed an outlet. Out of a bipolar system in which American alliances often formed with those who were sworn enemies in the prior World War (Germans, Japanese) emerged a new World War IV alignment in which old pals overnight became transformed into mortal archnemeses. American World War III funding to the Taliban and Iraqi Baathists was intended to further American anti-Soviet agitation. The Soviets were the primary enemy in World War III, although Communists located everywhere else in the world, whether within America itself or in Vietnam, Korea, and Angola, were considered enemies.

The Cold War was thus the World War from which World War IV emerges. World War III has not completely subsided. World Wars in this postmodern epoch do not contain a clear-cut beginning or end because of the multi-layered nature of violent conflict and its sociological bases. There are World War III enemies that still gnaw away at American imperial might (Cuba, North Korea). The last vestiges of World War III won't be settled for some time now. Most notably, the superpower rivalry between the US and the USSR did not end in full reconciliaton and amity. Far from it, Russia is currently very adamantly opposed (understandably so) to the continuing American policy of encirclement, which has brought Western troops to Russia's doorstep in Estonia, Bulgaria, Uzbekistan, and beyond. The West will continue to enjoy only limited support from Russia in its attempts to rollback Iranian, Palestinian, and Chinese military potential.

World War IV's deep roots lie in Israeli independence, which itself was a process very similar to many other nationalist movements across the world ranging from Ghana to Slovenia. However, the Arab world couldn't stomach the imperialist foot of the West all the way up its hind quarters. Yet, World War IV did not really get heated until 1973's oil embargo. Amidst staggeringly high oil prices, it continued to escalate during the Islamic Revolution in 1979 Iran. Still World War III was raging, through the heightened pace of the arms race during Reagan's massive increase in defense expeditures, which led to the creation of massive American public debt. World War III came to a close as Communist regimes throughout Eastern Europe lost steam, and the Soviet puppet states in turn led to the Soviet Union's own demise. The 90's were solidified as an upbeat decade during which American hegemony expanded, and the lack of a significant external threat permitted some political hacks to declare that the end of history had been reached. Such was wishful thinking, as men with big guns eventually get tired of holding up their guns if they never get to fire them. Thus, the new Pearl Harbor occurred on a dreadful day in 2001. World War IV only then became the dominant paradigm for explaining the alignment of nation-states, as the "terrorist" soon replaced what had been known as the "communist." Straussian ideology had found its new emnity that could be employed to catalyze national action and mobilize the masses to redirect their hope, dreams, and fears. The catastrophic events of September 11th allowed for a subsequent shift in focus, and the big guns were soon drawn.

Anti-American regimes were soon replaced in Afghanistan and Iraq by puppet states, despite protracted violent strife in both of those nations. While much of Europe rested contentedly on its laurels, the Anglo-American coalition (plus a few others like Denmark and Tonga, which actually withdrew its 45 troops in 2004) took on the white man's burden. The Yankees gladly accepted their role as world policemen, and a fresh balance of power surfaced. World War IV, as the second postmodern World War, does not feature simplistic and and isolated battles between clearly defined nation-states. Rather, complex ideological and supranational agents carry out their plans on many different levels through a sophisticated system of financial, diplomatic, and military strategery. Actors are not bound by loyalty to constantly shifting national identities. Populaces often do not wish to fight on the same side of this World War as their governments. Such is the case in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Egypt, countries whose Sunni Muslim governments are theoretically on the American side of World War IV. The US contributes billions of dollars to the development of economic and political infrastructures in these nations, yet millions of people that reside therein swear each day to destroy America.

Therefore, in explaining the role of critical geopolitics in evaluating today's alignment of countries, we must realize that arbitrary borders between states and illusions of sovereignty make impossible the conventional ways of establishing truths about violent conflict. The dualism inherent in the traditional dichotomy of victory and defeat does not explain why nations, transnations, or supranations make war these days. Winners do not win wars like they used to. Protracted struggles entail that both sides must compute whether death toll, financial loss, and social destruction amount to sufficient negative "externalities" or "blowback" to turn off the war machine. A minority of citizens supports the actual and ongoing violent struggle, yet hordes of believers have lent tacit approval to various social, ideological, and professional programs that necessitate their complicity in carrying out jihad - on both sides. War is big business. Religion is for sale. Fundamentalist guerilla fighters govern better than governments.

This line of thought will be followed up at a later date. For now, it suffices to generalize by saying that Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hezb'allah, al-Qaeda are on one site of World War IV and the U.S., Israel, EU, and a number of Middle Eastern regimes are on the other. A more nuanced picture will emerge graphically later.

The conclusion of this line of thought is that the West is ultimately going to place international keepers of the peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors at those points where no peace agreement has been cemented. By establishing a network of internationally-sanctioned Israeli insulation from Arabs, the Western security forces are shoring up the borders of their imperial space. Perhaps it is ultimately Europe's responsibility to physically protect Israel from the Arab aggressors? Is this the ultimate result of the Holocaust? American soldiers are in a position to fight on the brutal colonial frontier, where coveted geopolitical resources such as oil are at stake, while Europeans will be the guardians of peace.

The split between people and their governments is ever-lasting. Populist-Islamist forces vs. Capitalist-western-oriented regimes creates a looming Civil War within the Arab world in which the West is intervening. In fact, it is rather an imperial war, but the West merely has learned how to commission Arab manpower and assets in order to fight for the West. Given the current dichotomy, Baathist government, while nasty and brutish, doesn't seem that horrible. Are Arab nationalism and pan-Arabism more palatable than medieval Islamism or Islamo-fascism? Are Islamist governments even sincere? Or is religion just twisted to provide a form of systematic propaganda for despotic and anachronistic governmental methods of population control? Is Islamism more xenophobic and/or backward than medieval Christian rule? Bush, though revolting and rather ayatollesque, is a pawn submerged in a struggle amongst forces far stronger than himself. Though the Arab-Muslim world is divisively split and seemingly backward, it's more advanced that medieval Europe was during its intra-European Civil Wars, which raged on for decades. The intra-Arab Civil War has just begun. Palestine, Lebanon, and Iraq are zones are peril. It's time to plant some olive trees.

3 Monotheisms = 3 Militarisms

The Iranian so-called "Holocaust cartoon contest" recently announced the winner of a $12,000 sum, for penning the most clever retort to the series of Danish caricatures of the Muslim uber-prophet, Mohammed. Jabbing at the Jewish faith in response to a secular Christian Western European nation's bold assertion of press freedoms, this Iranian contest allowed for supposedly intelligent people to continue lambasting rival monotheistic creeds. All have missed the point! My cartoon collage to the left makes use of a range of critical images designed to unify the collective absurdities of the contemporary inter-religious discourse and its undying strife.

A violent international controversy was unleashed in February 2006, months after the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten (and subsequently several other Western newsdailies) published inflammtory cartoons depicting Mohammed, which Islam explicitly forbids (called aniconism, the absence of representations). As a result of the Danish failure to apologize for the publication of the hyperbolic and vitriolic representations, the Muslim world rose up in protest. This map shows the distribution both of re-publication and of violent reaction to the depictions. Altogether at least 139 people were killed in the riots, Danish/Norweigan embassies were set ablaze across the Middle East, and Danish companies lost approximately 134 million euros as part of the Arab economic boycott. However, Wikipedia reports that Danish exports to the U.S. climbed 17% in the U.S. for the 1st Quarter of 2006, as rightwing consumers snatched up Bang&Olufsen stereos and Legos galore.

It would seem that this whole mess, which pitted virulent Western Islamophobia against a vengeful "Arab street," ought to have been avoided at all costs. Yet, flying the sanctimonious flag of almighty press freedom, Western media outlets pushed the limits of tolerance. Perhaps humor and satire should be acceptable means of critiquing all religions. Ideally, cartoons would never provoke such a response. But, given the current climate of tense relations between Islamists and Christian-Western nationalists, this quixotic desire to publish cartoons whimsically and successfully just could not be fulfilled.

In my humble opinion, all of these militant monotheists are fools and hyprocrites. None of the three faiths actually represents the virtues it purports to embrace. And, all of them clearly violate, on a daily level, the most basic tenets of the Abrahamic creed, which forms the basis of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. In a show of solidarity with the Muslims worldwide who suffered more from pens than they did from swords, the Iranian contest (sponsored by Tehran daily Hamshahri and displayed in Tehran's Contemporary Arts Museum) aimed to place Jews squarely in between the original Danish offenders and the offended Islamic audience. The entire spectacle becomes a celebration of Holocaust denial, in which there is a range of blame and negation for the Nazi victims and the Palestinian oppressed, who seem to have received the brunt of the historical karma that the Holocaust initiated. No Iranian media outlet actually published any of the winning entries, which were announced on November 2nd. Also, very few Iranians have apparently visited the exhibition, which featured a range of artists from around the world. The official sponsors claim that they wanted to test the West's tolerance for drawings about the Holocaust.


The winning entry (to the right) shows the landscape of the Auschwitz concentration camp etched into a separation wall being constructed around the Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, Islam's third-holiest site. Another of the most notable toons also uses Holocaust imagery to project the suffering of the Palestinians. However, this cartoon also introduces the downtrodden Palestinian as the latter-day Jesus, since he is ostensibly being crucified by the historical Holocaust. Jesus was indeed an original Palestinian and a Jew, but Jesus would most likely not endorse the absurd set of cartoons that have been launched towards all of the three monotheisms.

Clearly, none of the three stands for the heinous violence and blatant lack of compassion that adherents to these faiths display without fail. While the Pope is able to apologize for offending Islam, why can he not simultaneously apologize for the fact that his religion has often acted as malevolently and disturbingly as the religion that he insulted? When will Jews realize that the Holocaust does not give them free reign to condemn Palestinians to an eternity of injustice and segregation? When will Muslims admit that their religion, among many others, was engendered by an agressive conqueror? The jingoistic/monotheistic deity that all 3 of these religions embrace is the same male, exclusive, and singular godhead. None of the three faiths is any better at carrying out the spiritual tradition of peace, tolerance, and freedom, while all three engage in perennial violence, hypocrisy, and self-righteousness IN THE NAME OF GOD.

Persian Weblogistan

I just read in this month's Wired magazine that Farsi (the predominant language of Iran) is the fourth most widely used language in blogs. Anonymous, tech-savvy Iranians vent about the oppressive theocracy in cyberspace. For all of you with Persian aversions, that should assuage your deepest-rooted fears about the malice of the Iranian populace. The government in control of Iran is clearly in bed with a backward class of religious zealots even more than Dubya's faithful caste lives off Pat Robertson's grundel sweat. Regardless of how much I vent about our president, he's certainly leagues better than Ahmadinejad.

Iran is ruled by a scary, fundamentalist crew of primitive ideologues. However, the strength of the current government followed a coup to overthrow a rather dictatorial pro-American shah, who himself wallowed in the legacy of an American-lead coup in 1953 that actually deposed a democratic regime. The CIA, in the interest of American big business, has lulled America into lots of situations where our Presidents (both Democratic and Republican) have authorized overthrowing demcratically-elected governments. Iran, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Chile...We don't fully support democracy! Surprise, surprise. We are merely in favor of relatively republican and Westernized regimes that allow American corporations to run amok. I guess that makes Dubya disingenuous.

Tickle my e-spot! The Weblogistan doesn't fib! So, what to do about these two maniacs in power? Bush and Ahmadinejad would probably enjoy a good spar (and I think the cowboy would win, in'ch-allah). Most of the rest of the world doesn't want a war because Iran is a big seller of petroleum and a relatively significant consumer of weapons. Looks like the US, EU, and Zion have a problem on their hands.

Too bad for Ahmadinejad, the Germans, Austrians, Canadians, and Americans didn't want the Jews setting up shop in the West. So, the West gradually has lent approval to the Israeli mission of establishing a stable, Western society in the midst of the Arab and Muslim sea. Frankly, I don't much approve of any of these race-baiting, Bible/Torah/Koran-toting zealots. Disarm Ayatollah Bush and his mullahs. The redneck Republicans are a bunch of mujaheedins, and I'm not interested in fighting their holy war. The universe's higher power clearly does not support any of these entity's against another. I wish people would just start being honest about their feelings. Instead of an Islamist saying "Allah does not will for the Zionists to control Palestine," can't he just say "Fuck Israel, I support Palestine." And rather than Rick Santorum talking about whether God hates fags, why doesn't he just admit that he personally doesn't like fags. Everyone could save a lot of time by removing the code word "God" from the equation. God doesn't care if Iran gets nuked to New Orleans or if the American empire declines and then dies.

It's at least amusing political drama to watch these comics throw around slogans about good and evil. When nuclear exchange becomes an Olympic sport, I'll be watching from the Weblogistan.

Ayatollah Ibn ben-Bloggah signin' off, B-more stays on top!