Richard "no snatch" Hatch, the first winner of US reality TV sensation Survivor, did not pay taxes on his $1m prize because he was greedy and a common garden variety thief, prosecutors have alleged.
Mr Hatch's lawyer claimed he was just a bumbling bookkeeper who was too busy whacking his carrot, and could not handle so much money, in closing arguments in his tax evasion trial. He was one of 16 contestants marooned on the Malaysian island of Pulau Tiga Feely Feely for the CBS show, which aired in 2000.
The jury has now begun deliberations in Providence, Rhode Island. Earlier in the trial Mr Hatch has told the court he thought the show's producers would be paying tax on his $1m winnings from the programme...I got it in writing, but my dog ate the contract.
Mr Hatch is accused of failing to pay tax on the money he won was given on Survivor in 2000, and is charged with using money earmarked for a charity on himself and his boyfriends. He shot spurted to fame as one of 16 contestants marooned on the Malaysian island of Pulau Tiga Feely Feely for the CBS show.
Accused of year 2000 tax evasion? Sorry Dickie old boy, there's only one box to ck.
THE South African clothing and textile industry has responded favourably to an announcement that China is to voluntarily reduce its clothing and textile exports to SA. A reduction in Chinese imports would help revive the domestic industry, said Aaron Searll, CEO of SAs biggest clothing and textile manufacturer, Seardell Investment Holdings, on Friday.
He said that clothing imports from China had risen 40% in the past nine months. It cannot be allowed to continue like this, it is overwhelming, Searll said. Chinas ambassador to SA, Liu Guijin, said on Thursday his country would limit export of garments and some textile items to SA. Searll said more clarification was required on the form the limitations would take, and whether they would mean a percentage cap on the volume of imports, as promoted by the World Trade Organisation (WTO).
The industry also needs to know how long is it to be enforced for and who will enforce it, he said. The import of high-quality textiles and clothing to the South African market by China has put increasing strain on the domestic manufacturing industry, leading to the demise of a number of companies, including KwaZulu-Natals largest textile manufacturer, Whiteheads.
The company, which closed its doors at the end of 2004, blamed cheap imports from India, China, Pakistan and Indonesia for a R200m loss in turnover in the last two years that it operated.
Clothing company Rex Trueform said in its annual report last year that highly competitive trading conditions in the industry resulted in larger-than-expected losses in manufacturing, which in turn resulted in retrenchments at all levels. Despite the massive job losses, which Searll put at 60000 in the past four years, he said the curb in imports would benefit the sector. Executive director of the Textile Federation of SA, Brian Brink, said he was not aware of the exact terms of the Chinese offer.
I do not know what has been negotiated, although every little bit would help, he said.
Brink said that the WTO agreement in which members are allowed to limit Chinese textiles and clothing imports to 7,5% a year of the current level of imports until 2008 was one possibility. Brink said he doubted the Chinese would stick to the particular limit as it was not a binding figure.
I feel that it was a bit of a pre-emptive move by the Chinese as the announcement was made by them instead of SA. The trade and industry department set up a task team in April 2004 to investigate the industrys need for protection against Chinese imports. The share prices of Rex Trueform, Seardell Holdings and Adonis Knitwear were unchanged at the close of the JSE on Friday.
The Khomeinist regime in Iran is finally baring its teeth to the world, in the public appearances of the little fanatic, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Irans nuclear build-up has been going on for two decades, and the regime is now openly laughing at diplomatic efforts by the Europeans to make it stand down its nuclear development. In addition to a dozen smuggled Ukrainian cruise missiles, the regime is now in possession of some 25 North Korean missiles with a 2,500 km range. Paris is well within range of Tehrans WMDs, as Jacques Chirac acknowledged last week when he told Iran that terror attacks in France could lead to a nuclear response.
The paradox is that the regime is most vigorously hated by its own people, who have suffered the most. The most attractive outcome, therefore, would be a Iranian Glastnost - a quiet overthrow of the mullocracy by its own figurative children, the people of Iran, especially the educated urban dwellers. The USSR crumbled when the children of the elite stopped believing. The children of the mullahs, most of them, have long ago stopped believing. Yet they are now being governed by a creature of the Basij and the Revolutionary Guard, who proclaims himself as a true believer in a Shiite Armageddon.
Ahmadinejad is not Gorbachev, but rather Stalin or Hitler. A peaceful revolt will not work by itself, but it can be a crucial ingredient.
Iranian Glastnost will therefore not happen without external military actions to render the regime visibly impotent before its people. When the US and UK invaded Saddams Iraq, his army crumbled in the face of a brilliant ground and air assault. The Kurds had in fact already rebelled after the Gulf War a decade before, and created their own autonomous region. A decade of US air attacks, combined with famously leaky sanctions, rendered Saddams military demoralized and unable to resist coherently.
Unbeknownst to us, Saddam was bluffing, putting up a creaky but intimidating front, terrorizing his own people, and hyping his goal of getting WMDs and missiles enough to fool the CIA and every other western intelligence agency.
Saddams real plan was to fall back on the insurgency we see today. But today the insurgency is on its last legs, led by Sunni Baathists who can hope for no mercy from the new Iraq, and by al Qaeda terrorists rejected by even the Baathist terror-brothers, and prepared for martyrdom. Zarqawi, it was just reported, sleeps with a bomb belt, so as to blow himself up if he is caught. He may get his chance very soon.
The conventional story peddled by the antique media is that US action in Iraq is a failure. On the contrary, by historical standards it is an extraordinary success, as successful as the liberation of Europe in World War Two. The Iraq action therefore provides many useful lessons for a policy to isolate, contain, and undermine the Tehran regime.
Lesson One: It is essential to encourage revolution and division in Iran, with military strikes against the regimes most dangerous assets.
One way to do that is to bomb only nuclear and missile facilities, most obviously the enrichment facilities now being built up in Natanz and Isfahan. If the civilian population is untouched, the Iranian people, who have many sources of news through the internet and satellite television (including Farsi-language broadcasts from a Los Angeles-based station run by Iranian refugees), will learn to understand who is their real enemy. The domestic opponents of the regime will rejoice.
No doubt the Ahmadinejad regime will continue to disperse its WMD capabilities, but as it does so, it also must lose some control. When Saddam told one of his nuclear scientists to bury centrifuge parts in his garden, that equipment was rendered useless for the time being. Saddams WMD capacity could have been reconstituted any time the pressure came off his regime, so that the threat was only slowed, not stopped. But an aggressive US policy against Saddam actually worked much better than was generally thought at the time.
The foremost aim of military strikes against nuclear and missile facilities would be to buy time. That is what US air strikes did against Saddam, over a decade after the Gulf War. They wore down his power, often in subtle ways, but very effectively. And they gave hope to his sworn enemies the Shiites, Marsh Arabs, Kurds, expatriate Iraqis and reform-minded elements among the Sunnis.
Lesson Two: The Tehran regime should be put on notice that proxy terror attacks will evoke a direct response aimed at its centers of power and ideology.
Jacques Chirac did so effectively last week, by warning that state-sponsored terror attacks could evoke a nuclear response from France. That was the right thing to say. The political aim of nuclear weapons is not necessarily to wipe out Israel, which Ahmadinejad must know would unleash the end of his regime by massive counterstrikes. Rather, the immediate aim is to shield Tehran from retaliation when it stirs up terrorist proxies to attack Israel.
The most successful Israeli strategy has always been to find the right return address, and make the sponsors of violence pay a stiff personal price. A major aim of Tehrans nuclear policy is to make the regime invulnerable to any large-scale attack, allowing it to stir up terrorist proxy assaults at will. A major strategic aim of US policy should therefore be to prevent nuclear capability in Tehrans hands, so that it must play the proxy strategy with constant concern for its own survival.
Ahmadinejads ideological roots are among the most radical mullahs in Qom, who cannot therefore be left off a target list. Iran is dangerous not just because it will soon have nukes, but because it has the ideological will to use them. That ideology, which may be a minority view among the mullahs themselves, could be attacked directly, if necessary without leaving American fingerprints. The recent plane crash that killed the top commander of the Iranian military may be a case in point.
Lesson Three: In addition to striking military facilities, the US should encourage widespread resistance among anti-regime factions and tribal groups, and consider special ops attacks on command and control centers of the regime.
Liberal commentators say that any military action against Iran would unify the people in support of the regime. But one lesson of war is that the event is less important than the public interpretation of the event. If local military strikes on the Natanz enrichment facilities are interpreted to mean that Ahmadinejad is helpless, he will begin to lose control. If they are interpreted as a blow against Irans national pride, he may gain adherents.
It is therefore essential to spread the message that the goal of any strikes is to empower the people of Iran, even as the Iraqis have been empowered by the overthrow of Saddam.
Since a foolish and politicized US Democratic Party and its sympathizers in the media and government will leak any propaganda effort at CIA or State, the agency best qualified to do this would be the Pentagon Special Ops Command.
Lesson Four: Allied assets should be used to encourage dissent, no matter what the source.
During the Iraq invasion the German government under Herr Schroeder helped the US with intelligence, while screaming at us in public. Under Socialist President Mitterand, French intelligence helped the US against the USSR. The French gave Israel vital information needed to bomb Saddams Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981, though they had helped build it themselves.
As fear of the Tehran regime spreads, more hidden allies will appear. The threat is serious enough for us to consider the enemy of our enemy our friend, just as we did in supporting Stalin against Hitler.
Iranian expatriates are by far our best resource in persuading the people of the true aims of US and allied policy: Iranian democracy. But even countries like Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia will find it in their interest to promote revolt among Sunni tribes in Iran. None of these allies will trust others with their most vital secrets. But they might agree on weakening this fanatical and deadly regime, whether by splitting the mullahs themselves, or by encouraging tribal rebellions.
As Reuel Marc Gerecht wrote in the Weekly Standard,
The regime in Tehran constantly tells us what it fears most: clerical dissent. Why cant American officials give speeches defending religious freedom in Iran? Ali Khameneis Achilles heel is that he is a politicized, pathetic religious scholar ruling over a theocratic state where accomplished clerics, who dont believe at all in the political rule of religious jurisconsults, are silenced. This is the issue between Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani in Iraq, and the school of Najaf behind him, and the clerical regime in Iran.
Perhaps Sistani owes us a favor or two for bringing his Shiite followers to power in Iraq. Perhaps he would like to control the Iranian clerics, rather than vice versa. This game can be played both ways.
There is a widespread belief that the upper grades of the CIA are useless, devoting more of their efforts to undermining the war on terror than on supporting it. The same may be true in the State Department and even the Pentagon. The administration has apparently responded by isolating useless segments of the bureaucracy, carrying out its real policies by means of smaller groups within those agencies, like the new Special Ops Command. An aggressive policy against the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons will have to rely on trustworthy US government assets.
The key therefore is to isolate the regime, showing it to by helpless against pinpoint military assaults on its most dangerous assets, while at the same time signalling the Iranian people that the West stands for their freedom.
A democratic Iran is a much safer Iran. But as Thomas Jefferson famously wrote, The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is a sad necessity, never to be chosen lightly. But we can get Jeffersons message out to the Iranian people, because they already know it from their own experience.
#1
I foresee a different future for Iran. For unlike in Iraq, where disparate peoples are held together by being "Iraqis"; Iran is a different story altogether.
Iran is so utterly dominated by the Shiites that it is doubtful if true democracy could overcome the equivalent sickness that the Sunnis suffered from in Iraq. For on top of their feelings of religious-ethnic primarcy, the Shiites also have a popular desire and belief that they should dominate the region.
In other words, even in a true democracy, the Iranian Shiites still want nuclear weapons, regional or even world power, and "their place in the sun", as did the Japanese in WWII.
The Japanese had to be slaughtered unmercifully before this lust was broken. And if Iran were to be successful, as Japan was at the beginning, they too would have to die in their millions.
But if Iran is defeated quickly, a different solution is forthcoming: the partitioning of Iran. That its Kurdish territories become part of greater Kurdistan, still part of Iraq; its Arabic territories, almost evenly divided between Shiite and Sunni, become part of southern Iraq, or become a separate Gulf democratic-Emirate; and that Baluchistan become part of a greater Baluchistan, either as a new nation, or as an adjunct to Pakistan.
Iran, reduced in size, would still not be wholly Shiite, and it would no longer dominate the Middle East, instead be more of a partner to it. And while it might be resentful of losing much of its oil reserves, it would be far less restentful, over time, of losing huge blocs of hated and restless minorities.
#2
Other than through word of mouth, which is unreliable and could lead us into a deadly mistake, what reason do we have to believe that the majority of Iranians want to overthrow the regime? This is the popular "buzz", but how true is it? We have lived enough to know that building a policy based on gossip, no matter how widespread, is a fool's mission.
Talk to an average Iranian-see how different his view of Jews is from that of Iran's president (not very). How many millions of people live in Iran and yet they are powerless to overthrow the radical mullahs? Perhaps they don't do it because the sacrifice is viewed as something someone else should take for them (like the US) and so they will remain impassive until that happens, or perhaps in their hearts they agree with the theocracy more than we may realize?
I honestly don't know; my point is that it is difficult to guage just how much energy and commitment Iranians have for changing the status quo.
#3
The question is not the willingness of the average Iranian to overthrow the government but the willingness of the elites to continue to do what is necessary to stay in power. The Soviet Union was not overthrown from the bottom as that the hollowness of its elites was exposed by it. The MMs are still willing to do whatever is required to stay in power to do Allan's will. Fry 'em up.
Good Gawd. I hope she's not related to Dan!... Matter of fact, reading through this, I'm sure she's not...
If the U.S. government and its people want to honor Martin Luther King, Jr., they should act on his dream of a Poor Peoples March and Movement on Washington, DC for jobs, economic equality, and the redistribution of Pentagon wealth and resources that should be given to the oppressed and unfortunate.
Any particular reason for that, other than that Beverly would like to be able to hand out somebody else's property as her own largesse?
Since militarism is built into the fabric of the American society, five Amendments should, without delay, be ratified to the U.S. Constitution.
Amendments require the agreement of two thirds of the states. Merely saying that they "should, without delay" be ratified, even before being drafted, is mere vapor. What if the people of the several states don't feel like it? What if they're presented but turned down? What will Beverly do then? Rush out into the street waving a pitchfork? Or will she shut her pie hole and acknowledge that her demands are stoopid?
Amendment 28 would consist of full-employment for those wanting to work and a minimum wage of $10.50 and hour-adjusted each year in accordance with inflation.
That makes no economic sense at all, despite the fact that government periodically resets the minimum wage, and always higher. It hurts workers because to remain viable each employee must produce $10.50 an hour of value to the company, plus profit, or the employer will have to let him/her/it go. That results in earnings per hour of $0.00 for the terminated employee. Every time the minimum wage is raised, minimally productive jobs that is, starter jobs and part-time jobs disappear. Ask any shoeshine boy. Furthermore, the jobs that barely make expenses, typical of a startup small business, find themselves not quite making expenses, which causes them to go under. People like Beverly like to exhibit their generosity, rather than their good sense.
Universal and quality health care coverage-similar to what government officials have-should belong to every citizen and would be the 29th Amendment.
This, of course, comes absolutely free of charge. There's no requirement for extensive changes in the infrastructure of the health care industry and no need to dramatically raise taxes.
Affordable housing for each family, without the bondage of debt, would be the 30th Amendment.
Yeah. This also comes free. Pay no attention to anybody who tells you that housing has a per-square-foot cost that's been going up steadily and that there's only so much usable land now constrained by people live Beverly, who invented "smart growth." It'd be just wonderful if the gummint gave everybody a house. I want mine to be nicer than Beverly's, though. And nicer than yours, too.
Amendment 31 would consist of a true democratic process before the U.S. commits itself to war. The nation, as a whole, must vote with a yearly plebiscite to renew or discontinue the war effort thus keeping the military-corporate elite accountable.
What if they gave a war and nobody voted against it? Wars are usually conducted for rational reasons of national policy. The fact that you don't like war in general really doesn't govern what the rest of the body politick thinks. We have a republic, in which representatives are elected to consider the national interest and to set its program of action. The president uses the military, the State Department, the CIA, and whatever other tools might be available, to pursue that policy. If people are going to vote on the policy, they should have to take a quiz on what the policy actually is and what steps have been taken to achieve it.
The 32nd Amendment would place a moratorium on government spending for war and the initiating of any new conflicts, while recognizing every Americans right to follow their conscience-without punishment-including military duty during wartime...
(In Part II, I will discuss the numerous ways that the American Society can be reordered.)
I can hardly wait. Wonder which junior college has her as a sophomore?
#2
She forgot the most important amendment: Amendment 33, which ensures that all Americans will receive, in the color of their choosing, a flying pony.
#5
I prefer to think of it as "post-natal abortion prior to age 23."
Probably exceptions can be made on the upper limit if the life or the mental health of people coming into contact with the little darling are endangered.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/25/2006 16:32 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I love the way these idiots always have a plan that should be implemented just because they say so. None of that "see what people actually want" crap for them! Democracy is a political market and the reason their plans aren't in place is that people consistently vote against them. But, of course, these twits know better, being *sniff* pure-hearted socialists *sniff*.
#10
Where do parasitic scum like Beverly get the idea that they're somehow "entitled" to goods and services at someone else's expense? Who the hell told them it's OK to leech off other people, that they have a "right" to have others provide for them?
ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Dave D. ||
01/25/2006 17:58 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Yes Dave D. they do. I would bet she comes for a family that has instilled in her a feeling of entitlement to both wealth and being catered too. I also be she has never done a bit of real labor in her entire life.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
01/25/2006 18:17 Comments ||
Top||
#14
I think Beverly should empty bedpans at Walter Reed
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/25/2006 18:57 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Mebbe we can use Douglas Adams' Golgafrincham Gambit (my occasional references to the "B" Ark) and avoid CW2 - sans the virulent plague due to an unsanitized phone, of course, lol. A brilliant (per American usage) bloodless solution, though rather expensive.
#16
Ah-- a use for that Space Elevator thingie! Give a whole new meaning to the term "upward mobility"...
Posted by: Dave D. ||
01/25/2006 19:24 Comments ||
Top||
#17
And we could tell the "special" ones, such as Bev, that it's actually a really spiffy "ride" - only available to her ruling class... the best part is the "slide" back down the monomolecular support filament sans the elevator...
And I like Frank's idea, too, heh. It might be a little above her station, but I'm sure she's minimally trainable.
#18
"... the best part is the "slide" back down the monomolecular support filament sans the elevator..."
Once the little leech passes the midpoint, though, that slide becomes up, not down. Loosen the setscrews holding the anchor weight to the monofilament, and when she gets to the top she'll get a REAL thrill.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
01/25/2006 19:44 Comments ||
Top||
#19
DD - you're a madman!
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/25/2006 20:36 Comments ||
Top||
#20
Just think of it, Frank: the "Liberals In Space" program...
Posted by: Dave D. ||
01/25/2006 20:42 Comments ||
Top||
#21
I was picturing what would happen if she tried to grab onto a monomolecular filament...
Someone give her a sash and a sparkling crown. Be sure to have kleenex ready as she wipes away her tears (don't smear the mascara) and hugs her nearest competitor.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
