Others prepared various dishes which were delicious, but my job was the main course: the lamb. There were to be 15 of us, so I had bought two boneless legs of lamb. I spent about an hour cutting up fresh garlic and inserting it into the legs. When I had cut up the garlic, but before I inserted it into the lamb, I was afraid I didn't have as much garlic as I wanted. Once I started struggling to find new places to put the garlic, my fears were eased.
About two hours or so before dinner time, I fired up the Webber charcoal grill (the finest cooking device known to mankind). I dusted the lamb with rosemary and thyme, and when the coals were just right, I put the lamb on the grill. Before I put the lid on, I added chunks of hickory and mesquite wood on the fire, which was separated into two piles, so the lamb would cook by indirect heat.
All I have to say is that I'm satisfied with the results of my labor. Oh, and every time I burp this evening, I'm reminded that I had plenty of garlic.
James Joyner relates a Washington Post story on the discovery of remnants of suicide squads in Fallujah, Iraq. The most important point to me was
The evidence -- Islamic books, pamphlets, tapes and farewell letters in Arabic -- suggested that some of the men were not Iraqis from the area, but foreign Sunni Muslims who had traveled to this urban Sunni stronghold to fight and die in a holy war, both against the U.S. forces and the country's Shiite Muslim majority.
To be honest, though,
...so far they have not conclusively established that any of the insurgents were foreign infiltrators.
Not conclusively,
But the unearthing of the Islamic documents among the bomb-making materials Sunday, while two foreign journalists and an Arabic interpreter were present, suggested that at least some of the suicide squad members were not from Iraq.
I don't know how closely Iraq was linked to Islamic terrorism before we attacked last year. I agree with James, though, that it appears pretty clear that there's a strong linkage today.
I received this little tale in an email. It ostensibly originated with Dr. David R. Kamerschen, Distinguished Professor of Economics at the University of Georgia.
TAX CUTS - SIMPLE LESSON IN ECONOMICS
Politicians exclaim; "It's just a tax cut for the rich!", and it is accepted as fact. But what does that really mean? In case you are not completely clear on this issue, we hope the following will help:
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way Americans pay their taxes, it would go something like this:
* The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
* The fifth would pay $1.
* The sixth would pay $3.
* The seventh $7.
* The eighth $12.
* The ninth $18.
* The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the restaurant owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."
Okay...so, now dinner for the ten cost only $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So, the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 reduction "windfall" so that everyone would get his "fair share'?
The six men realized that $20 divided by 6 is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being PAID to eat their meal!
So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
* The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
* The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 ( 33% savings).
* The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 ( 28% savings).
* The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 ( 25% savings).
* The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 ( 22% savings).
* The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 ( 16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.
But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
* I only got $1 out of the $20," declared the sixth man. Then, pointing to the tenth man, he whined "but he got $10!"
* "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"
* "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only $2? The rich get all the breaks!"
* "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
* They were so angry at the "injustice" that the nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
* The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him.
But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important:
They didn't have enough money between all of them to pay even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. If "fairness" rules, the people who pay the highest taxes should get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them unfairly, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore. There are lots of good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean.
Reading Kevin Drum reminds me that, to be fair, I need to mention some of the things where I believe the Bush administration is going wrong, not just where I think they're right.
As a classified document, the August 6, 2001 PDB which was just declassified yesterday, is no less damaging today than it was two years ago. I have a hard time thinking of any reason for the difference than political advantage, or maybe being backed into a political corner.
Another beef I've got with the Bush administration is their inability to admit they've ever made a mistake. This point is softened quite a bit by political realities. Admission of any error in our current political climate is like dousing yourself in gasoline and handing your enemy a match. As virulent as the anti-Bush attacks are as it is, it's unimaginable how extreme they would become if anyone in the administration admitted to making a mistake.
I've heard this on several occasions recently. In discussing the fact that the 9/11 attacks were a surprise, some self-important pundit lists the guilty parties: the Bush administration didn't know, the Clinton administration didn't know, the CIA didn't know, the FBI didn't know, the media didn't know...say what? Since when was the media an intelligence agency?
I know, I know, sometimes the best source of information is the news media. But in the sense of collecting intelligence information on the plans and actions of terrorists, since when has the media done anything besides report the announcements made by governments, or report on attacks made by the terrorists.
This pious acceptance of responsibility for not telling people about the dangers presented by Al Qaeda prior to 9/11 by various ego-inflated chuckleheads just shows how clueless so many of these people are.
I'll update with a direct quote from Lisa Myers on MTP today as soon as they post the transcript.
