THIS MODERN WORLD

…do you, Mr. Jones?

Bob Dylan’s Masters of War is a hard-hitting, anti-war song produced more than 20 years before any current Boulder High School student was born.

More than 40 years after its release, the song has been resurrected at Boulder High with huge and confusing repercussions that prompted Secret Service agents to pay the campus a visit Thursday.

Some students and parents apparently let the Secret Service and talk-radio stations know they were unhappy with the plan of a trio of students to do a poetry reading of the song, accompanied by background music, according to Ron Cabrera, the school’s principal.

Rumors were rampant that during an audition and rehearsal for today’s talent show, the students changed Dylan’s powerful last verse at the end of the song to say that they hoped that President Bush was going to die.

The last verse begins: “And I hope that you die; And your death’ll come soon.”

Secret Service agents interviewed Cabrera on Thursday to determine what all the uproar was about and whether any threats were being made against the president’s life.

“They were following up and doing their due diligence,” Cabrera said of the agents’ visit. “They had been receiving calls from the community and, in the course of the talk show, felt like they had heard (the students) inciting physical harm to the president.”

Cabrera said he talked to the students and teachers who have been working with them, and he was told the group, which calls itself the Coalition of the Willing, made no reference to Bush.

“I don’t know why it surfaced,” Cabrera said of the complaints. “I think they’re surprised by all the allegations.”

Cabrera said he also showed the agents the lyrics of the entire song. The agents appeared to have left satisfied that no bona-fide threat was being directed at the president, he said.

All right then. A couple of high school kids singing an old Bob Dylan song, as it turns out, were not threats to the life of the President. Glad we got that one cleared up.

Next up: the Secret Service visits Political Pet Toys, to investigate rumors that four legged carnivores are planning to chew on the President’s head, and maybe chase after him if he is tossed across the lawn.

I assume you’ve heard about this by now.

The U.S. military is investigating the killing of a wounded and apparently unarmed Iraqi prisoner inside a mosque during combat operations here, the Defense Department told NBC News on Monday.

NBC’s Kevin Sites, who witnessed the incident Saturday while assigned to represent a pool of news organizations, reported Monday that the man was shot by a Marine who appeared to be unaware that the Iraqi was a wounded prisoner and did not pose a threat.

— snip —

One of the Marines noticed that one of the severely wounded men was still breathing. He did not appear to be armed, Sites said.

The Marine could be heard insisting: “He’s f — ing faking he’s dead — he’s faking he’s f — ing dead.” Sites then watched as the Marine raised his rifle and fired into the man’s head from point-blank range.

“Well, he’s dead now,” another Marine said.

And according to Bob, this is being defended by some of the same people who — just a few weeks ago — were busy denouncing John Kerry for acknowledging that sometimes bad things happen in wartime.

There’s only one way this mindset is consistent: if you believe that Americans, by definition, are always on the side of light and therefore never commit atrocities. Whatever Americans do is justified.

There are some notable people in the not-so-distant past who believed something similar.

American troops died in large number to fight them.

What followed was the creation of a large body of international law on what is and is not a war crime. Much of this law was purchased with American blood.

And now… this is where we are.

One final point: the soldier in question has at least one defense I can think of, which is ultimately human and understandable, even without condoning what he did. In the midst of a dangerous situation, furious from earlier combat, sleep-deprived, overheated, god knows what all the guy went through… he made a momentary, snap decision, one which he may or may not come to regret for the rest of his life.

OK. That’ll all be at the trial and so on. That’s one thing.

But the people condoning this sort of summary execution as we speak… words fail me. They have no such defense. Most of them are sitting in comfy chairs enjoying a broadband connection, with all the time in the world to consider moral questions.

And they say killing people in cold blood is A-OK.

There was a post here, now there’s not. The hardcore RSS fanatics and I will simply have to agree to disagree, because I have given this topic way too much time as it is. But for those of you who are happy even if I don’t give you everything on a silver platter, and maybe come over and wash your car for good measure — and honestly, that’s most of you — here’s a partial RSS feed, which will notify you when there are new posts:

https://www.thismodernworld.com/index.xml

(If you’re reading this entire post through some sort of aggregator or syndication site, you should know that my words are being syndicated without my permission and against my wishes, and I would encourage you to let the people responsible know that there’s a legitimate RSS feed available.)

And that’s it. That’s all there is. This one is done.

In 1973, there was a pop song on the radio, by Tony Orlando and Dawn: “Tie a Yellow Ribbon Round the Ole Oak Tree.” The song told the story of a recently released prison convict riding a bus home, not sure if his sweetie is still interested. To spare them both an uncomfortable scene, he has informed her ahead of time to tie a yellow ribbon, etc., if she wants him to see him.

During the Iranian hostage crisis of the late seventies, one of the wives of the hostages appropriated the symbol, tying a yellow ribbon around a tree in front of her house. Before you knew it, there were yellow ribbons everywhere, expressing solidarity with the hostages and their families.

So when we use yellow ribbons to express support for the troops — are we admitting that they are, in a way, prisoners and hostages? After all, stop-loss programs are keeping a lot of people in the service who have already given far more than they ever expected. And now the military is apparently so desperate for bodies that they are trying to call people back to active duty who have long since fulfilled their commitments, and gone on and started lives and families.

In the last few months, the Army has sent notices to more than 4,000 former soldiers informing them that they must return to active duty, but more than 1,800 of them have already requested exemptions or delays, many of which are still being considered.

And, of about 2,500 who were due to arrive on military bases for refresher training by Nov. 7, 733 had not shown up.

— snip —

“I consider myself a civilian,” said Rick Howell, a major from Tuscaloosa, Ala., who said he thought he had left the Army behind in 1997 after more than a decade flying helicopters. “I’ve done my time. I’ve got a brand new baby and a wife, and I haven’t touched the controls of an aircraft in seven years. I’m 47 years old. How could they be calling me? How could they even want me?”

Some former soldiers acknowledge that the Army has every right to call them back, but argue that their personal circumstances – illness, single parenthood, financial woes – make going overseas impossible now.

Others say they do not believe they are eligible to be returned to active duty because, they contend, they already finished the obligations they signed up for when they joined the military. A handful of such former soldiers, scattered across the country, have filed lawsuits making that claim in federal courts.

…whoops! Here’s the link.

Tom Crum, Middle East chief for Halliburton’s Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR) subsidiary, demanded that Kuwaiti Hilton staff get his wife a diamond-encrusted Cartier watch in the middle of the night, according allegations reported by internal United States embassy memos.

Meanwhile his senior managers, who have made the seaside villas at the hotel their headquarters for almost two years, were openly soliciting bribes from anyone who wanted to get a share of the multi-billion dollar contracts that the company oversees for the military occupation force in Iraq, the accusations claim.

At the very least, KBR staff are portrayed as arrogant and heavy-handed by the allegations, which largely date from December 2003 and the early months of 2004. At worst, the accusations paint a picture of illegal behavior.

The internal embassy communications also portray Richard Jones, the U.S. ambassador to Kuwait, as anxiously pushing the Texas-based company to buy overpriced fuel from a specific company, Altanmia Commercial Marketing Company. Altanmia officials counter that KBR staff were deliberately undermining their bids.

The collection of documents, including e-mails, memos and reports were released to the media by California Representative Henry Waxman, to top ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Government Reform. They are only a small part of over 400 internal documents delivered to the committee, which wields oversight of U.S. contracts relating to Iraq.

“Get off your f&^%ing ass, put my wife in a car, and go get her a watch,” Crum is alleged to have told Camille Geha, the sales manager at Khalifa Hilton resort in Kuwait, in early 2004. Aware that the company was spending up to $1.5 million a month at the hotel, Geha is said to have told an unnamed embassy staffer that he had a jewelry store at the Marina Mall opened in the middle of the night to get a new watch.

More, via Cursor.