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: LindyBill who wrote (52611)	7/3/2004 12:46:56 AM
From: gamesmistress	Respond to of 793914

Boy, those Iraqis are tough: Saddam guilty as hell: Iraqis By Nicolas Rothwell in Baghdad July 3, 2004 THE court proceedings against deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein may be only just beginning, but already the people's verdict - clear-eyed, cool, unrelenting - is in. Even as the violence continued yesterday, with scattered explosions and several rockets fired at the Sheraton Hotel, Baghdad's voices were raised in common response to the extraordinary sight of the old leader facing arraignment live on national television. At an easygoing teahouse on Abdul Jafar Street in south Baghdad, proprietor Hashem, gap-toothed and determined, weighs his words with care: "We want to see justice. We want the law to be applied to Saddam. Of course many Iraqis think he should be killed - we lived through 35 years of his dreadful regime. "It hurts to see a man humiliated that way, but Saddam made his own bed with the things he did." Like many others at the tea-house, as cards are played and backgammon boards scrutinised, Hashem feels the route of justice - justice seen and exercised - is vital, so as to mark out the new order from the old. Hashem has raised a family - "only" five children - under the overthrown Baathist party state. Now he sees hope for the younger generation in a new kind of country, governed by the rule of law. Alongside him, Haji Thamra, who went to Mecca for the pilgrimage aged 17, and now has young children of his own, describes the shock he felt on watching the dictator facing justice. "It was astonishing. There he was. He jailed our people, he killed us, we suffered through three wars because of him - we haven't even been able to build our own future because we were all fighting in the army - so of course I'm happy to see him in the dock. It feels like the start of a new way for Iraq." The nargila - the hookah pipe, its smoke accented with strawberry and cappuccino lozenges - is passed around, the discussion mounts. There should be detailed presentation of the evidence against Saddam and his henchmen, all the tea-drinkers and card-players say. Even the young men among them feel a moment of urgent significance in the national story that has just been played out before their eyes. There is, though, a faint dissenting current. A lone voice holds out. Hakim, a solemn, well-educated economist, sees some virtue in Saddam's conduct: "Not as the president of this country, of course, because he was very harsh". In fact, Saddam's regime killed Hakim's brother in 1975. But the dictator had his followers, and Hakim admired Saddam's determination, and believes his wars were fought to defend national honour. There is a certain amazement at these views, as the cards are shuffled and the thick-sugared tea cools. And then the gathered crowd remembers that Hakim comes from Tikrit, the old dictator's home town. Blood and local allegiance still run strongly here. So, too, does vengeance. Just the day before, one of the fallen regime's key military strongmen was shot a block from this tea-house, and left for dead. news.com.au

To: LindyBill who wrote (52611)	7/3/2004 12:51:46 AM
From: gamesmistress	Respond to of 793914

I like Jeff Jarvis's suggestion: Fahrenheit $911 The Wall Street Journal reports that big profits from Fahrenheit 9/11 will go to charity. It's not because Michael Moore is a generous liberal. Ha! That's a good one. No, in this wonderfully byzantine tale, it's because Disney wanted to punish the Weinstein brothers. The Journal explains why charities yet to be picked -- by Disney -- will get up to 40 percent of the take: According to people familiar with the matter, the media company was determined to punish the brothers for their alleged bad behavior by limiting the extent to which the Weinsteins could benefit. In essence, Disney refused to sell the film to the brothers unless they agreed that they would not benefit personally any more than they would have under their employment agreement. That is still a lot of money: Under that complex deal, the Weinsteins typically pocket about 40% of the net profit from any Miramax picture, after the costs of distribution, prints and advertising and talent participations are deducted. But people close to the deal say that Disney demanded that the remaining 60% go to a charity or charities of its choice. : Dear Disney, Michael Moore, and the Weinsteins, A wag might suggest that the money be donated to the Bush campaign just for the value of the punchline. But I have a far better suggestion: I urge you to donate this money to Spirit of America to benefit the people of Iraq. If you care so much about the victims of the Bush war, as you see it, then, Mr. Moore, put some pressure on: Put Disney's money where your mouth is and benefit these people. And you might want to throw in a few of the gazillion bucks you're making on your flick, too. Thank you. buzzmachine.com