Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (20163)	12/16/2003 8:39:09 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793578

Saddam the Sewer Rat By Derek C. Schneider Maj. Derek C. Schneider is a member of the U.S. Army Civil Affairs Branch, currently serving as Public Works Officer, Public Facilities Team, 308th Civil Affairs Brigade. DefenseWatch "The Voice of the Grunt" 12-16-2003 How are the mighty fallen – II Samuel 1:25 “He was just caught like a rat” was how Maj. Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of the 4th Infantry Division, described the capture of Saddam Hussein. Caught like a “sewer rat” is closer to the truth. That’s because in all likelihood the hole in which Saddam was hiding was not a specially built “spider hole” as commentators and even many soldiers believed. Based on my own recent work in Iraq, I know that Saddam Hussein’s last place of refuge was a septic tank. During my tour in Iraq, I managed 75 reconstruction projects with the 4th Infantry Division in the “Sunni Triangle” near to where Saddam was captured. These projects included sewage disposal and sewage treatment systems, along with the refurbishment and construction of many septic tank systems. The cramped underground chamber next to the hut where Saddam had been hiding matches a common septic tank design found everywhere in Iraq. Here is a passage I wrote for the U.S. Army’s “Iraqi Construction Assessment Guide”: “The most common form of sewage system outside of the biggest cities would be a septic tank. Septic tanks are not like the ones found in the U.S. They come in two basic forms, block or metal tank. In the block type, a hole is dug into the earth next to the building. Then an Iraqi cinderblock, brick or concrete block structure is built. The bricks or blocks are covered with mortar to make a smooth surface. It is covered with a solid or beam concrete ceiling similar to other structures. Into this the main or sub-main drainage lines are run. A small metal hatch is usually put into the ceiling of the tank to allow the tank to be emptied when full.” In rural Iraq where Saddam was captured, there is no sewage treatment available. Most Iraqis build their own version of a septic tank to dispose of their waste. These are built by first digging a hole in the ground about 1-2 meters deep. The hole is then lined with bricks or concrete cinder blocks to form walls. In areas where there are no vacuum trucks to suck up the sewage, the bottom of the tank is not sealed with bricks but left open to the dirt. This allows for the liquid waste to soak into the ground as a form of leach field. Often salt is added to the dirt bottom to assist in the break up of the waste material. The bricks are covered with mortar to form a smooth waterproof surface to keep the waste from sticking to the walls. Steel beams are placed over the hole and the spaces between the beams are filled with bricks, which are placed in a slight arch with gypsum instead of mortar as a binding agent, as it dries faster. A small hole is left in the top of the septic tank to allow it to be emptied as it fills up. Often a pipe is run to the tank to allow sewage to be poured into the tank without having to remove the access cover. In photos of Saddam’s hideout, the mortar-over-brick construction is easily seen. In fact, the bricks are exposed in some spots where the mortar covering is worn away. In the roof of the hole, the support beams can be seen. Around the ventilation fan new gypsum is apparent which means that this was added after the hole was built. It was not needed for the original design or it would have been mortared into place. The location of the hole near a hut only reinforces the idea that this was originally a locally-built septic tank. Most likely, the hole was emptied of sewage and the dirt bottom expanded horizontally to allow for better hiding. This is supported by the reaction of news reporters who had crawled into the hiding hole. They all mention the terrible stench of the place. Also, a nearby ditch had recently been put to use as a latrine, which indicates that the septic tank for the hut was not available. From everything seen, it is apparent that Saddam had converted the septic tank of the hut where he lived into a bolt-hole to hide in if coalition forces approached. It turns out to be an unbelievably fitting form of irony. Saddam was found cowering in a septic tank like the vermin he is. At last, the “sewer rat” has been put in a proper cage, even if it is an improvement over his last quarters. sftt.org

To: Lane3 who wrote (20163)	12/16/2003 9:00:08 PM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793578

Perhaps this left leaning person has a point......... Liberal Media Bias What are the causes? By Draginol Posted Wednesday, November 12, 2003 on Right Wing Techie Discussion: Politics Liberal bias in the media is pretty established at this point. Established in the sense that any reasonable person who has put any significant effort into looking into the issue will have come to that conclusion. The main deniers of such bias come, naturally, from liberals. Debating whether there is liberal media bias, for me, is like debating evolution vs. creationism. I'm not going to waste my time debating whether evolution is a fact or not and I'm not going to debate whether liberal media bias is a fact or not. I'll leave that to others who have more time on their hands. ;) For one thing, the problem with proving liberal media bias is the reliance on statistics on what is covered. There is no quick way to do it. Just as Creationists can pop up a dozen websites "proving" he bible's accuracy, liberals can pop up websites that argue there is no liberal bias or more amusingly, websites that show a conservative in the media. I happen to believe that most liberals can be convinced of a liberal bias. But to do that, some basic ground rules have to be provided: 1) It's liberal media bias. Not Democratic Party bias. The media is just as likely to fry a Democrat as a Republican. Though I suspect that they relish frying the Republican and the threshold of what gets reported may be a bit different. 2) Liberal bias has to do with social values. Not political ones. Those values specifically revolve around social justice, racism, affirmative action, abortion rights, gun control, the military, gay rights. 3) And the clincher: <font size=4>Liberal bias is unintentional. It is not a conspiracy. It is largely unconscious. It is the result of liberals believing that they are not liberal (or not very). That their views are mainstream. In fact, not only are their views mainstream but they honestly believe that conservative views are fringe. Held by only a tiny percentage of right wing extremists whose views don't warrant coverage because so few people hold those views in their mind. <font size=3> Here's a clue though for liberals: Most conservatives don't believe the government should be involved in social justice, solving "racism", promoting affirmative action, providing federal rules on abortion (let alone by a court), providing gun control or making special laws for different lifestyles. And about half the population feels this way. Not a tiny "fringe". HALF. It is item #3 that Bernard Goldberg's new book, "Arrogance - Rescuing America from the Media Elite" deals with. Rather than argue that liberal bias is the result of liberals trying to force their agenda down our throats, it is the result of liberals thinking that their agenda is already shared by the majority of people. With one exception: The New York Times which has spent a great deal of effort these past 3 years forcing its politically correct agenda down our throats. Liberals in the media tend to think that people who think that assault rifles should be legal are just a bunch of NRA crazies. In fact, a large percentage of Americans, myself included (and I don't even own a gun), believe that. My writings on my blog here would probably be considered to be "far right" by the liberal media even though my opinions and values are not just shared by a large percentage of Americans but that I am actually to the left of a sizeable percentage because I'm pro-choice, pro gay civil unions, and favor a progressive tax code. Liberals tend to simply see their views as being more civilized, more sophisticated, more thought out. Conservatives, by contrast, are a bunch of barbarous red necks with Confederate flags on their pickups waiting to lynch some poor African American -- at best. At worst, conservatives are a fringe of fascist rich people who got there by stepping on the hopes and dreams of everyone else. What humane person can possibly be against affirmative action? Only racists are against that think liberals unconsciously. Being against gay marriage is just simple bigotry by religious zealots. Pro-Lifers are a bunch of hypocritical nuts. People who favor the war on Iraq are just stooges of right wing propaganda (particularly Fox News no doubt). Liberals are "progressives" (think the media would use "progressive" or "visionary" for conservatives? I somehow doubt it). Conservatives are described as "far right", "right wing extremsists", "fascist", "right wing nut", and worse depending on whether it's on camera or off camera. <font size=4> And what happens is that liberals tend to think that only a tiny fringe element of society believes what conservatives believe. So why give coverage to something only a few people believe? After all, everyone they know has the same opinions they do. They may not even know a single person who doesn't have the same opinions on these issues. So they conclude (wrongly) that those who hold conservative values are actually on the fringes of society. Either greedy rich bastards or uneducated red necks in the sticks who probably can't ready anyway so why bother writing about their point of view anyway? Michael Moore actually has put this view quite succinctly. He truly believes that most Americans have the liberal views he does. That Republicans are supported by a confederacy of fringe groups that band together. But each fringe group is made up of only a tiny number of largely ignorant hate-filled zealots who are statistically irrelevant. As a result, when deciding what to cover on TV or in the news, it comes down to focusing on things that they believe the majority of their readers or viewers think worth hearing about. And since they think their viewers hold the same beliefs they do, they pick the things they're interested in covering and exclude the things they think are unworthy. And that is what I think is the basis of the liberal media bias in America. <font size=3> draginol.joeuser.com