If the dice are stacked at your joint, is it a roll?
At the Beau, it is a no roll, just like it was back in our Grand days. In all my time at the Grand I never saw stacked dice, and never heard stories about it. I have personally witnessed stacked dice now THREE times in almost five years at the Beau.
Crazy, huh? Is this just the law of averages catching up? My good buddy Shamus, (Las Vegas native, UNLV fan, bleeds Cubs blue, a freaking lights out golf player) has been in the business 30 years the last instance was his first. Made a point of looking at me and saying, "Well, Jimmy. Now I HAVE seen it all."
Hey, you know what you're working in black on this game?
Monday, February 14, 2011
Fabula ex opus...
(Sorry... I was testing my Latin last night at work with a fellow employee)
Tales from Work...
I'm flooring two jam-up games last night (jam-up for us here in PA, anyway), working purple to all four ends and cash and markers flying everywhere, when I hear the start of a beef on one of the tables.
I walk over and stand behind the box, and listen to a player tell the box that he needs to be more consistent in his calls of "no roll". The player was stern, and the box was silent. Nothing more was said by either of them.
So I lean in and ask what the problem is...
Now, the box is a man of my general age (mid to late 40s) hailing from the Midwest gaming industry (same as me) with (supposedly) 20+ years in the trade. He looks at me and says, with a voice that carried quite nicely across the entire table, that he told the shooter to hit the back wall with the dice every roll. The shooter did not hit the back wall, and he (the box) called a no roll... because he "doesn't play those kind of games when he sits on a dice game!" What the box FAILED to tell me was that the very next roll of the dice was ALSO short of the back wall, but came up SEVEN OUT and the call stood, the line was locked up and the next shooter was given the dice.
So, once I have gleaned the gist of this disaster to the best of my ability, I again hear from the box that he "doesn't play those kinds of games on his tables!" So, in a voice just as loud as his, I say that I DO play those kinds of games, and that game is called CRAPS, and there are lots of reasons to call a NO ROLL, but short shots are NEVER ONE OF THEM... EVER. I tell him simply and plainly, without ambiguity or expletive, that he will NOT call a NO ROLL again without confirming it with ME as his supervisor... no exceptions. If a dice hits the floor and the stick calls it NO ROLL, then I am to be called over to confirm... each and every time.
Now, no sooner do I get this little bit of drama behind me then I return to the same table to watch some color go out. The amount brought in is just over $1200 in red and green, but the box says the total as "Thirteen hundred" and instructs the dealer to cut it out and send it. I stop the move, tell him he is WRONG, instruct the dealer to send the correct amount, and walk back to the other table where there is table max action left and right. 30 seconds later... beef.
I come back to find that the player making the $1200 color heard the box's total of "thirteen hundred" and wants to know why he is only getting $1200 in purple and black? A perfectly fair and straight-forward question... but the box has already locked up the player's cheques and put them into the bankroll, so we cannot show him what was turned in initially. So, as this is explained to me by the box (in a much more subdued voice than previously used), I AGAIN instruct the box that, in the "real world" of casino dice pits, we do not run down color or EVER put it away without first making sure that the PLAYER verifies the exchange and agrees to the total. I explain to the player what happened, he accepts what I say and walks away... but offers the fair and accurate observation to the box that he was as out of place in his job as an "@$$hole in a urinal". All three dealers bust up laughing at this... and I actually have to tell them to stop just to get the game back on track.
The box is taken off the game to explain to the shift boss what happened. Upon his return, I ask him if he remembers what he was working in black cheques (he left in a bit of a hurry, and didn't pass this on to the floor that tapped him out). His response was a rather curt and surly "NO". I look him dead in the eye and say "That's what I thought." and proceed to tell the pit manager that I want to write him up for each infraction and error that had occurred up to that point.
I did three written warnings on my next break, and today I get to see what the result of my efforts are. I'm hoping for at least a suspension... but I can't discount the possiblity that he might get axed completely (especially if this isn't his first write up... and they booted him off of swing shift entirely for something). As short-handed as the place is supervisor-wise, I can't say I'm not excited about THAT prospect...
Tales from Work...
I'm flooring two jam-up games last night (jam-up for us here in PA, anyway), working purple to all four ends and cash and markers flying everywhere, when I hear the start of a beef on one of the tables.
I walk over and stand behind the box, and listen to a player tell the box that he needs to be more consistent in his calls of "no roll". The player was stern, and the box was silent. Nothing more was said by either of them.
So I lean in and ask what the problem is...
Now, the box is a man of my general age (mid to late 40s) hailing from the Midwest gaming industry (same as me) with (supposedly) 20+ years in the trade. He looks at me and says, with a voice that carried quite nicely across the entire table, that he told the shooter to hit the back wall with the dice every roll. The shooter did not hit the back wall, and he (the box) called a no roll... because he "doesn't play those kind of games when he sits on a dice game!" What the box FAILED to tell me was that the very next roll of the dice was ALSO short of the back wall, but came up SEVEN OUT and the call stood, the line was locked up and the next shooter was given the dice.
So, once I have gleaned the gist of this disaster to the best of my ability, I again hear from the box that he "doesn't play those kinds of games on his tables!" So, in a voice just as loud as his, I say that I DO play those kinds of games, and that game is called CRAPS, and there are lots of reasons to call a NO ROLL, but short shots are NEVER ONE OF THEM... EVER. I tell him simply and plainly, without ambiguity or expletive, that he will NOT call a NO ROLL again without confirming it with ME as his supervisor... no exceptions. If a dice hits the floor and the stick calls it NO ROLL, then I am to be called over to confirm... each and every time.
Now, no sooner do I get this little bit of drama behind me then I return to the same table to watch some color go out. The amount brought in is just over $1200 in red and green, but the box says the total as "Thirteen hundred" and instructs the dealer to cut it out and send it. I stop the move, tell him he is WRONG, instruct the dealer to send the correct amount, and walk back to the other table where there is table max action left and right. 30 seconds later... beef.
I come back to find that the player making the $1200 color heard the box's total of "thirteen hundred" and wants to know why he is only getting $1200 in purple and black? A perfectly fair and straight-forward question... but the box has already locked up the player's cheques and put them into the bankroll, so we cannot show him what was turned in initially. So, as this is explained to me by the box (in a much more subdued voice than previously used), I AGAIN instruct the box that, in the "real world" of casino dice pits, we do not run down color or EVER put it away without first making sure that the PLAYER verifies the exchange and agrees to the total. I explain to the player what happened, he accepts what I say and walks away... but offers the fair and accurate observation to the box that he was as out of place in his job as an "@$$hole in a urinal". All three dealers bust up laughing at this... and I actually have to tell them to stop just to get the game back on track.
The box is taken off the game to explain to the shift boss what happened. Upon his return, I ask him if he remembers what he was working in black cheques (he left in a bit of a hurry, and didn't pass this on to the floor that tapped him out). His response was a rather curt and surly "NO". I look him dead in the eye and say "That's what I thought." and proceed to tell the pit manager that I want to write him up for each infraction and error that had occurred up to that point.
I did three written warnings on my next break, and today I get to see what the result of my efforts are. I'm hoping for at least a suspension... but I can't discount the possiblity that he might get axed completely (especially if this isn't his first write up... and they booted him off of swing shift entirely for something). As short-handed as the place is supervisor-wise, I can't say I'm not excited about THAT prospect...
Apologies, doctorae...
I got cut short yesterday while making my post... sorry if it left anyone hanging. I think I hit all the valid points, all I was missing was the conclusion, which isn't hard to glean.
Got to see the latest Spartacus last night... another homerun, if you ask me. Vidius is well on his way to being every bit as hated in this series as Selonius was in the last. Looking forward to the next chapter... I think both Titus and Gannicus are going to die by trusted hands very soon.
The lid switch went on my washer... perfect timing, since we are always backed up on laundry around here. I found the part easily enough online (nearest store with it in stock was two hours away), and I'll have it by tomorrow... but I don't have a schematic of the machine, and I'm curious if anyone here has ever had to remove the top of a top-load washer before. I know there are hidden clips under the lid's edge... but even in a short trial run, I wasn't able to get them to release. Obviously, I can spend more time on this Wed morning, as I am off work... but I would like to have everything ready and know I'm well on the way to completing the effort as I can possibly be.
A new washer of the same caliber as the one we have? $420 minimum. Cost to have someone come and replace the switch for me? $275 plus the cost of the switch, and a ten-day wait on the repair. Cost to have the switch sent to me directly from Sears? $64... and the obligatory two hours of fighting with the machine and testing my cursing skills as I do so, with delivery guaranteed in one day. The math on this kind of exercise is obvious and easy... but the math is never the problem. The problem always lies with the logistics. Logistics are where I fail, time and time again... as my wife is always so eager to point out.
What is the military maxim? Tactics wins battles, but logistics wins wars... right? Let's hope my preliminary efforts pay off in the logistical side of this "fix the washer" campaign... this house can't survive long without a washing machine.
Got to see the latest Spartacus last night... another homerun, if you ask me. Vidius is well on his way to being every bit as hated in this series as Selonius was in the last. Looking forward to the next chapter... I think both Titus and Gannicus are going to die by trusted hands very soon.
The lid switch went on my washer... perfect timing, since we are always backed up on laundry around here. I found the part easily enough online (nearest store with it in stock was two hours away), and I'll have it by tomorrow... but I don't have a schematic of the machine, and I'm curious if anyone here has ever had to remove the top of a top-load washer before. I know there are hidden clips under the lid's edge... but even in a short trial run, I wasn't able to get them to release. Obviously, I can spend more time on this Wed morning, as I am off work... but I would like to have everything ready and know I'm well on the way to completing the effort as I can possibly be.
A new washer of the same caliber as the one we have? $420 minimum. Cost to have someone come and replace the switch for me? $275 plus the cost of the switch, and a ten-day wait on the repair. Cost to have the switch sent to me directly from Sears? $64... and the obligatory two hours of fighting with the machine and testing my cursing skills as I do so, with delivery guaranteed in one day. The math on this kind of exercise is obvious and easy... but the math is never the problem. The problem always lies with the logistics. Logistics are where I fail, time and time again... as my wife is always so eager to point out.
What is the military maxim? Tactics wins battles, but logistics wins wars... right? Let's hope my preliminary efforts pay off in the logistical side of this "fix the washer" campaign... this house can't survive long without a washing machine.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
When you're right, you're right.
I can't argue with Websters definition, but I'd submit the American Heritage definition as closer to my intended and understood usage:
" A quick and decisive seizure of governmental power by a strong military or political group. In contrast to a revolution, a coup d'état, or coup, does not involve a mass uprising. "
I'm in no position to debate whether or not the protests in Egypt constituted a "mass uprising", but the Egyptians themselves are calling it a "revolution"... so I was too.
Your point about the future of Egypt is too accurate to be ignored, but that is exactly what WILL happen to the issue by the liberal leadership in this country. For good or ill, the Mubarak regime had kept itself in power for 30 years through phony elections and paper referendums that gave the mild illusion that he was the "people's choice". The people seem to have grown tired of this, and raised their voices in a collective shout that brought down what could only have been considered one of the more stable, moderate governments in the region.
Its sort of funny... I found myself asking what prompted this sort of action on the part of the Egyptian people? Mubarak was no tyrannical madman like Stalin or Hussein was... he was even more moderate than his more famous predecessor, Sadat. His relationship with Israel was far more an effort of status quo than of dramatic new paradigm. His government's control of Egyptian economic factors was far less intrusive than that found even in Greece today, and the Egyptian economy was actually doing rather well, when compared with other regional powers (Egypt not being overly rich in oil reserves).
Look at its neighbors... Chad, Sudan, Libya, Tunisia, Ethiopia... and tell me any of their political or economic situations are any BETTER than Egypt was under Mubarak. I can't imagine anyone being able to do so at all. So what was the spark that lit this fire?
I think it was Iraq.
The Middle East has factions and parties that have decried the US invasion since day one, in every country and corner of the region. A million reasons have been given as to why the US should not have interfered with the Iraqi regime, or why its continued efforts are bad, bad, bad... but there is one thing that no one can deny:
For better or worse, the Government in Iraq is made up of the men and women chosen in free and open elections (now numbering 11 local, district and national) by anyone over the age of majority. That is not true anywhere else in the Middle East... anywhere else. Ever. It's not true in Turkey, or Iran, or Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait. It certainly isn't true in the Palestinian territories, and even Israel limits voting rights for the Knesset to Israeli citizens (meaning Palestinians living in the occupied territories are respresented by proxy, not by franchise). No woman has ever voted in Iraq prior to the 2005 general election... and that NEVER would have happened with Saddam in power...
Gotta run, more later.
" A quick and decisive seizure of governmental power by a strong military or political group. In contrast to a revolution, a coup d'état, or coup, does not involve a mass uprising. "
I'm in no position to debate whether or not the protests in Egypt constituted a "mass uprising", but the Egyptians themselves are calling it a "revolution"... so I was too.
Your point about the future of Egypt is too accurate to be ignored, but that is exactly what WILL happen to the issue by the liberal leadership in this country. For good or ill, the Mubarak regime had kept itself in power for 30 years through phony elections and paper referendums that gave the mild illusion that he was the "people's choice". The people seem to have grown tired of this, and raised their voices in a collective shout that brought down what could only have been considered one of the more stable, moderate governments in the region.
Its sort of funny... I found myself asking what prompted this sort of action on the part of the Egyptian people? Mubarak was no tyrannical madman like Stalin or Hussein was... he was even more moderate than his more famous predecessor, Sadat. His relationship with Israel was far more an effort of status quo than of dramatic new paradigm. His government's control of Egyptian economic factors was far less intrusive than that found even in Greece today, and the Egyptian economy was actually doing rather well, when compared with other regional powers (Egypt not being overly rich in oil reserves).
Look at its neighbors... Chad, Sudan, Libya, Tunisia, Ethiopia... and tell me any of their political or economic situations are any BETTER than Egypt was under Mubarak. I can't imagine anyone being able to do so at all. So what was the spark that lit this fire?
I think it was Iraq.
The Middle East has factions and parties that have decried the US invasion since day one, in every country and corner of the region. A million reasons have been given as to why the US should not have interfered with the Iraqi regime, or why its continued efforts are bad, bad, bad... but there is one thing that no one can deny:
For better or worse, the Government in Iraq is made up of the men and women chosen in free and open elections (now numbering 11 local, district and national) by anyone over the age of majority. That is not true anywhere else in the Middle East... anywhere else. Ever. It's not true in Turkey, or Iran, or Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait. It certainly isn't true in the Palestinian territories, and even Israel limits voting rights for the Knesset to Israeli citizens (meaning Palestinians living in the occupied territories are respresented by proxy, not by franchise). No woman has ever voted in Iraq prior to the 2005 general election... and that NEVER would have happened with Saddam in power...
Gotta run, more later.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
It's a weird phone you have ...
It can receive text messages, but not send them. Had your phone this new fangled technology of sending texts, rather then just receiving them, you would of known upon asking me why this was in fact a "coup."
From Merriam-Webster
Definition of COUP D'ÉTAT:
a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics; especially the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group.
Nixon "resigned." That's not what happened here. If it were a simple resignation then upon Mubarak's departure the second in the line of succession within that government would have assumed control. That didn't happen. Let me explain:
Let's start with this - on Thursday Mubarak again tells Egypt and the world that he is not stepping down, but rather will not seek "reelection" come September 2011, when his current term expires. Friday Morning he announces he's out. Clearly he didn't leave on his own accord. Someone marched down that hallway (heavy emphasis on marched) and informed him he was out. The Egyptian military, via their "Supreme Commander," then dissolved the entire Mubarak government. That commander then announced to Egypt and the world that they (the military) would be issuing details on the transfer to a "more democratic" (his words) government on Saturday. They (the military) then assumed control of all curfews and security, and issued orders that NO government official was allowed to leave the country. They even coordinated with Cairo Airport, providing the list of names and photos so as to enforce this. Now no one is going to tell me that Minister A, B or C still has power if he hasn't the power to get on a plane if he chooses.
So, the military was clearly the impetuous behind Mubarak's 24 hour change of heart. They then retired his government (not just him). Announced they were dictating curfews, minus civilian leadership & under their own authority, and that they would be issuing details on what the new government will look like come Saturday. And just for emphasis on who's in charge - every senior member of government is on defacto house-arrest. And given the military authority is derived from the simple fact that they have all the guns (or most of em'), I think you can add the looming threat of violence as well.
That would be like when Nixon resigned rather then Ford assuming the presidency the Chair of the Joint-Chiefs announced he was suspending the entire Nixon administration, cabinet members and the like, dissolved congress, and would announce details on the new form of government in a week. Wouldn't you of considered that a coup? That's what happened here.
Now, all that being said, I am very relieved that the military asserted itself prior to any widespread outbreaks of violence, and before the Muslim Brotherhood was able to make any grab at power. As I said, the US should ensure the Egyptian military's salaries if necessary.
And here's why I am relieved - Mubarak departed 32 years to the day of when the Shah of Iran "resigned." Khomeini stepped off the plane in Tehran 1 month later. We should heed the historical significance ...
The "Muslim Brotherhood" is the original Islamic fundamentalist group. They were formed in the 1920's. They were banned in Egypt in the 1950's. It was they whom organized and carried out the assassination of Egyptian President (& Mubarak predecessor) Anwar Sadat 32 years ago, for his "betrayal" in making peace with Israel. Hamas commonly refers to itself as the Palestinian chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood. Bin Laden was schooled by its members (literally) in his early days of activism. These guys are the ideological grand pubas of all the Islamic-Fascist terror groups that came after them, the region over. Their "ideological and spiritual leader" (that's the guy's title), is on record at an Islamic conferences as late as September 2010 pronouncing the Holocaust as the Jews "righteous punishment." Their charter calls for a "world-wide Caliphate." These are hard core fascists. Fanatical Islamic fundamentalists. Which is why I was shocked when I listened to our NID (National Intelligence Director, who's role post 9/11 is coordinating the various US security agencies) testify before congress this very week and say that the MB was now largely secular, and had forgone violence in most cases. This is an out and out fabrication, and Israel is screaming the opposite. So why would he say it, other then to lay down cover for a future diplomatic engagement with the US? And that's exactly what I think is going on. See, it doesn't matter if they are only 5%, or 10% of the population. So long as they are the only (or best) organized opposition, they have a real chance of resting awawy control of the government in any election (see: Hamas).
So, the question begs - will we see the rise of another Turkey, or another Iran?
I'm less then optimistic. Does anyone remember the recent thread of mine and Titus in which the thesis (one I thought we all agreed upon) was that to be a "practicing" Muslim is to be incompatible with democracy? And we agreed that until such time that Islam-at large (as practiced circa 2011) underwent a Renaissance, it would remain incompatible with democracy, save an external event (i.e. Iraq). Well if that's true, then consider that Egypt is 80 million people strong, the vast majority of which are Muslim, making it the largest Muslim-majority nation in the world. And now, save the military, there is a power vacuum. Or at least power "opportunity." So why, given our agreed upon thesis, would I be anything less then pessimistic about a genuine democracy emerging in Egypt?
And believe me, no one hopes I'm wrong more then me.
From Merriam-Webster
Definition of COUP D'ÉTAT:
a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics; especially the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group.
Nixon "resigned." That's not what happened here. If it were a simple resignation then upon Mubarak's departure the second in the line of succession within that government would have assumed control. That didn't happen. Let me explain:
Let's start with this - on Thursday Mubarak again tells Egypt and the world that he is not stepping down, but rather will not seek "reelection" come September 2011, when his current term expires. Friday Morning he announces he's out. Clearly he didn't leave on his own accord. Someone marched down that hallway (heavy emphasis on marched) and informed him he was out. The Egyptian military, via their "Supreme Commander," then dissolved the entire Mubarak government. That commander then announced to Egypt and the world that they (the military) would be issuing details on the transfer to a "more democratic" (his words) government on Saturday. They (the military) then assumed control of all curfews and security, and issued orders that NO government official was allowed to leave the country. They even coordinated with Cairo Airport, providing the list of names and photos so as to enforce this. Now no one is going to tell me that Minister A, B or C still has power if he hasn't the power to get on a plane if he chooses.
So, the military was clearly the impetuous behind Mubarak's 24 hour change of heart. They then retired his government (not just him). Announced they were dictating curfews, minus civilian leadership & under their own authority, and that they would be issuing details on what the new government will look like come Saturday. And just for emphasis on who's in charge - every senior member of government is on defacto house-arrest. And given the military authority is derived from the simple fact that they have all the guns (or most of em'), I think you can add the looming threat of violence as well.
That would be like when Nixon resigned rather then Ford assuming the presidency the Chair of the Joint-Chiefs announced he was suspending the entire Nixon administration, cabinet members and the like, dissolved congress, and would announce details on the new form of government in a week. Wouldn't you of considered that a coup? That's what happened here.
Now, all that being said, I am very relieved that the military asserted itself prior to any widespread outbreaks of violence, and before the Muslim Brotherhood was able to make any grab at power. As I said, the US should ensure the Egyptian military's salaries if necessary.
And here's why I am relieved - Mubarak departed 32 years to the day of when the Shah of Iran "resigned." Khomeini stepped off the plane in Tehran 1 month later. We should heed the historical significance ...
The "Muslim Brotherhood" is the original Islamic fundamentalist group. They were formed in the 1920's. They were banned in Egypt in the 1950's. It was they whom organized and carried out the assassination of Egyptian President (& Mubarak predecessor) Anwar Sadat 32 years ago, for his "betrayal" in making peace with Israel. Hamas commonly refers to itself as the Palestinian chapter of the Muslim Brotherhood. Bin Laden was schooled by its members (literally) in his early days of activism. These guys are the ideological grand pubas of all the Islamic-Fascist terror groups that came after them, the region over. Their "ideological and spiritual leader" (that's the guy's title), is on record at an Islamic conferences as late as September 2010 pronouncing the Holocaust as the Jews "righteous punishment." Their charter calls for a "world-wide Caliphate." These are hard core fascists. Fanatical Islamic fundamentalists. Which is why I was shocked when I listened to our NID (National Intelligence Director, who's role post 9/11 is coordinating the various US security agencies) testify before congress this very week and say that the MB was now largely secular, and had forgone violence in most cases. This is an out and out fabrication, and Israel is screaming the opposite. So why would he say it, other then to lay down cover for a future diplomatic engagement with the US? And that's exactly what I think is going on. See, it doesn't matter if they are only 5%, or 10% of the population. So long as they are the only (or best) organized opposition, they have a real chance of resting awawy control of the government in any election (see: Hamas).
So, the question begs - will we see the rise of another Turkey, or another Iran?
I'm less then optimistic. Does anyone remember the recent thread of mine and Titus in which the thesis (one I thought we all agreed upon) was that to be a "practicing" Muslim is to be incompatible with democracy? And we agreed that until such time that Islam-at large (as practiced circa 2011) underwent a Renaissance, it would remain incompatible with democracy, save an external event (i.e. Iraq). Well if that's true, then consider that Egypt is 80 million people strong, the vast majority of which are Muslim, making it the largest Muslim-majority nation in the world. And now, save the military, there is a power vacuum. Or at least power "opportunity." So why, given our agreed upon thesis, would I be anything less then pessimistic about a genuine democracy emerging in Egypt?
And believe me, no one hopes I'm wrong more then me.
Passing the test...
Obama's top two intelligence directors were tested this week with all the drama in Egypt, and neither passed the test.
CIA Director Leon Panetta said that his information on the resignation of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, given Thursday in front of the House Intelligence Committee, was from "media reports" and not from any CIA or international sources... meaning any one of US could have given the same opinion with the same confidence as he was. The job must surely be worth an easy $250,000 a year... let's save the tax payer some money and let ME do the job for $80k, and I'll even do it from home. I'm sure my sources are every bit as good as Leon's.
Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, gave testimony to the same House Intelligence Committee on Thursday, stating that the Muslim Brotherhood was "a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence. " This is so patently false a statement that almost every rational member of even THIS Administration had immediately said it was certainly NOT secular, nor had all of its membership "eschewed" violence at all. They have, as a "heterogeneous" group, vowed to exterminate all Jews and drive the West (I assume that means the US and her allies) out of the Middle East. Of the 61 protest-related deaths in Egypt, more than half are attributed to actions taken by the Brotherhood in inciting riots by the protesters.
THIS is the meat-and-potatoes of the Obama White House's intelligence platter... a political hack from the House who has had odd jobs with Democratic Presidents since Carter and a washed-up "light general" from the Air Force who seems to get all his "intelligence" second hand (probably from Panetta). If this was the "test" that Biden promised that Obama and his team would face, then they have failed utterly and completely.
CIA Director Leon Panetta said that his information on the resignation of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, given Thursday in front of the House Intelligence Committee, was from "media reports" and not from any CIA or international sources... meaning any one of US could have given the same opinion with the same confidence as he was. The job must surely be worth an easy $250,000 a year... let's save the tax payer some money and let ME do the job for $80k, and I'll even do it from home. I'm sure my sources are every bit as good as Leon's.
Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, gave testimony to the same House Intelligence Committee on Thursday, stating that the Muslim Brotherhood was "a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence. " This is so patently false a statement that almost every rational member of even THIS Administration had immediately said it was certainly NOT secular, nor had all of its membership "eschewed" violence at all. They have, as a "heterogeneous" group, vowed to exterminate all Jews and drive the West (I assume that means the US and her allies) out of the Middle East. Of the 61 protest-related deaths in Egypt, more than half are attributed to actions taken by the Brotherhood in inciting riots by the protesters.
THIS is the meat-and-potatoes of the Obama White House's intelligence platter... a political hack from the House who has had odd jobs with Democratic Presidents since Carter and a washed-up "light general" from the Air Force who seems to get all his "intelligence" second hand (probably from Panetta). If this was the "test" that Biden promised that Obama and his team would face, then they have failed utterly and completely.
A yardstick for progress...
In case anyone is wondering, this is how I am going to gauge the success of the Egyptian "democratic revolution" in the coming months...
This entire process seems to have started (in Egypt, anyway) with the bombing of a Christian church in Alexandria and the failure of the Mubarak regime to satisfy the populus that all was being done to protect them and their interests. It is ironic to me that the very groups attributed to the "revolt"... the Muslim Brotherhood... could very well contain the men responsible for the bombing that seems to have triggered this, but I degress.
Much of the unrest and discontent that stemmed from Mubarak's lack-luster reign was on the part of the Christian community in Egypt (less than 10% total, but far larger in cities like Alexandria), and how those people are viewed and represented by the new government will tell me just how commited it is to real democracy and reform. If the new government is comprised of radical Islamists bent on sharia-law and repressive Islamic leadership... then I will know the effort failed and Obama's verbal support of the protesters was a huge mistake.
This entire process seems to have started (in Egypt, anyway) with the bombing of a Christian church in Alexandria and the failure of the Mubarak regime to satisfy the populus that all was being done to protect them and their interests. It is ironic to me that the very groups attributed to the "revolt"... the Muslim Brotherhood... could very well contain the men responsible for the bombing that seems to have triggered this, but I degress.
Much of the unrest and discontent that stemmed from Mubarak's lack-luster reign was on the part of the Christian community in Egypt (less than 10% total, but far larger in cities like Alexandria), and how those people are viewed and represented by the new government will tell me just how commited it is to real democracy and reform. If the new government is comprised of radical Islamists bent on sharia-law and repressive Islamic leadership... then I will know the effort failed and Obama's verbal support of the protesters was a huge mistake.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
