I went to Algeria for work, just last week.

The worst was getting the VISA, had to wait for a while, send all the papers, included a strange insurance which will cover me in case I am sick or severely injured and cannot fly back home.

We (me and my colleague) flew there on Saturday, since they start to work on Sunday.

My first time in a Muslim country.Thing that has impressed me is security. To get into the plane you are checked hundred times. Can't count how many times I passed though a metal detector and my bag was x-rayed. And Police on the streets, almost everywhere close to "important" buildings.

Well, I don't know if such measures were done to make people feeling better. For sure it will discourage any spiteful but naive guy over there.

Ah, yes...food was good, though. We had an excellent grilled beef, lamb, and chicken,  sided and covered with french fries.

The rest of the week, hotel-work-hotel. Rather than an hotel it was kind of "golden cage", so to say, a five star resort with three restaurants and a pub/night club with a billiard table and two guys doing piano bar there.

Had time only to take few shots there. Pity.

T.S. Eliot wrote in his immemorial poem The Hollow Men,

This is the way the world ends

This is the way the world ends

This is the way the world ends.

Not with a bang, but a whimper.

So, too, goes the Constitution. The silent and egregious asphyxiation of Article 1, Sec. 8, Cl. 10 is over 50 years old now. The plastic bag placed over this clause in 1949 was intentional. Today, Congress doesn't even know to whimper as her suitor approaches. What have been the results of this pound of flesh? What have ye wrought? For starters, America has not declared war since WWII and yet, we have been engaged in over 70 military actions.

The purpose of writing this post is to champion the constitutional meaning of a declaration of war and on the other hand, how to know when a formal declaration of war is unnecessary. The modern application has made the distinction not so clear. In the context of Congress’ power to declare war, pragmatism has dictated that initiation of hostilities requires an authorization for use of force. This authorization comes not from Congress but rather from the U.N. Security Council. Indeed, the argument is that Congress “authorized use of force” in Iraq through a "Use of Force" resolution deferring judgment to the Security Council. The argument goes like this: a declaration of war under the Constitution is the same as Congress' resolution adopting the Security Council's permission to go to war. Good enough, right? Wrong. This raises troubling questions purposefully ignored by the Republican leadership and others that were probably not contemplated. The dilemma is easily seen with respect to the term "terrorist."

Purpose for the "Legal" State of War

As the Father of International Law, Hugo Grotius, wrote, the state of war is

not an immediate action, but a state of affairs; so that war is the state of contending parties, considered as such. This definition, by is general extent, comprises wars of every description . . . .For the Latin word, Bellum, WAR, comes from the old word, Duellum, a DUEL, . . . and thereby implied a difference between two persons, in the same since as we term peace . . .

See Hugo Grotius, The Rights of War and Peace18 (1901 Dunne Reprint of Campbell Latin translation). This description of affairs between opposing nations, or in some contexts, between a nation and a group of individuals is a critical legal state. It is critical because the parties to this state of affairs immediately become "enemies." If we know who the enemy is, terms such as "terrorist" are properly side stepped. After all, who exactly is a terrorist? I challenge you to give it a definition before you go further. Seriously, don't read any further until you write a definition.

The term "terrorist" is a broad and vague term that doesn't help adjudicate the laws of war. The word "terrorist" can't be defined without including George Washington, Patrick Henry, Robert E. Lee, and Thomas Jefferson, et al. In short, you can't make a verb into a noun and expect it to fulfill a legal role.

Let me illustrate this point. Police seek to terrorize criminals. Criminals terrorize their victims. In fact, most common criminals would be terrorists, right? I, too, terrorize my 4 year old son when he is disobedient and my wife when I decide to give chase. Don't mistake the argument for being flippant or hyper-technical. There is no mistaking that Al Quaeda intends to terrorize their victims and more. And, I fully realize we are trying to describe a particular individual with the term "terrorist." But with this term, we are left with an analogy to Justice Potter Stewart who defined pornography as, "I know it when I see it." The problem of murky legal classification is easily seen when we arrest people around the world as suspected "terrorists" instead of determining whether that individual belongs to a group or nation that has declared war on us. We cannot know what legal rights to ascribe or impute to a particular individual. The laws of Nature do not allow us to simply arrest people on a whim. We must have authority. A declaration of war, on the other hand, identifies a specific enemy. We know who to target and who to destroy. We have authority.

When is a Declaration of War Unnecessary?

There are times when a declaration of war is patently unnecessary. Revisited many times as of late, the example of the Barbary Pirates is instructive. They attacked our ships and demanded tribute. They received that tribute from us until we decided not to pay. The host Islamic countries, Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli decided on two occasions based on the Koran, to declare war on the United States. Congress then passed laws to go after these host countries under its war power and made rules for the capture of vessels. From there, the Marine Corps hymn was born. A declaration from Congress was, therefore, wholly unnecessary because the legal state of affairs constituting war already existed. Congress needed only to implement rules for the capture of the pirates and the authorization of the military force for that purpose.

Bin Laden made no bones about his intent when he declared war against America in 1996. Ergo, a declaration would be unnecessary because the state of affairs was declared. A declaration of war would in fact be redundant. In contrast, with respect to military action in Iraq, we refer to this engagement as the "Iraq War" despite the fact that no declaration exists. Iraq never attacked us and we have no proof that they were going to or had been. Reviewing the Congress' use of force resolution here is therefore instructive.

What is a Declaration of War?

Congress shall have the power 'to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water.' Chief Justice John Marshall removed any doubt what this meant:

The whole powers of war being by the Constitution of the United States vested in Congress, the acts of that body can alone be resorted to as our guides in this inquiry. It is not denied, nor in the course of the argument has it been denied, that Congress may authorize general hostilities, in which case the general laws of war apply to our situation, or partial hostilities, in which case the laws of war, so far as they actually apply to our situation, must be noticed.

Talbot v. Seeman, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 1, 28 (1801) (emphasis added). It is the exclusive act of Congress alone to “declare” war or hostilities. Congress is therefore unable to delegate this exclusivity either in whole or in part to the President or the U.N. Security Council. The only possible means to do so is to follow the Amendment Clause in Article V. And, before the President can end hostilities, he must have the advice and consent of the Senate to conclude treaties of peace. We have yet further guidance. Marshall's protege' Justice Joseph Story wrote,

[T]he constitution confers on congress the power to declare war. Now the word declare has several senses. It may mean to proclaim, or publish. But no person would imagine, that this was the whole sense, in which the word is used in this connexion. It should be interpreted in the sense, in which the phrase is used among nations, when applied to such a subject matter. A power to declare war is a power to make, and carry on war. It is not a mere power to make known an existing thing, but to give life and effect to the thing itself.

(Emphasis added.) II Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution § 428. Under the Constitution, the word "declare" means much more than simply to publish and to make known the state of affairs. It is a state of affairs that draws after it belligerent rights, it changes the legal status of the Government or the relations of its citizens from that of peace to a state of war, and it brings in a host of duties and obligations of neutral third parties.

Rather than looking to past declarations of war which are clear and name an enemy, turn to the Declaration of Independence. We see a bill of particulars, a set of factual occurrences giving rise to an event. We do not see a series of facts determined by a foreign body of non-citizens giving us the authority to sever the political bands.

Why The Resolution of 2002 is not a Declaration of War

When one looks to the final form of H.J. Res. 114, known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, it is filled with reasons unrelated to "war" debates in Congress. There are 23 or so “Whereas” clauses citing a failure to comply with U.N. Resolutions and broad statements without any facts suggesting the Iraq was going to attack the U.S. in the future. WMDs were the primary reason, WMDs that have never been found. In fact, Sadaam Hussein told his interrogator, an FBI Agent named George Piro, that Sadaam didn't think the U.S. would invade. And, he said he bluffed possession of WMDs to keep Iran at bay. That Sadaam intended to reconstitute his program is of no great moment. After all, it has been alleged that Russia and Syria were involved in moving the WMDs. Of course, Russia has its own WMDs and to be sure, wanted them back from Iraq. Former head of the KGB, Vladimir Putin, knows well how to use them, especially employing radioactive material to murder dissidents in other countries such as Alexander Litvinenko. Why not pass a "use of force" against these nations too?

Further, when one looks at the Resolution of 2002, we see factual violations relating solely to the U.N. and Security Council Resolutions—an unelected body. We see determinations by an unelected body on violations of its own resolutions. We also see a half-hearted, bald allegation that Al Quaeda who is known to have attacked the U.S. on 9/11 was also in Iraq. (This Al Quaeda in Iraq" allegation is unsupported by any facts in the declaration. According to FBI Interrogator Piro, Sadaam hated Al Quaeda because they were disruptive to his power.) So what does the resolution do exactly? By relying on a factual basis of "violations" of U.N. decrees, Congress knowingly allows itself to dodge constitutional duties to debate and declare war. In effect, what Congress has done is to substitute its judgment for this other body known as the U.N. And, the President is therefore authorized to determine what, where, when, and against whom to go to war. Even if that means being at war for 100, 1000 years---ad infinitum.

Turning to the text of the resolution, Section 3 (a) of the "Use of Force Resolution Authorization” Congress delegates its war power to the President and allows him and the Security Council to substitute the judgment of 535 elected congressman. Specifically, the President is empowered to:

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

What continuing threat? When one looks to the “Whereas” clauses, the only possible factual threat "continuing" is Iraq’s past conduct in the First Gulf War [i.e., use of force action] and its “violating its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions . . . .” Facts were not enumerated in the text. There was no fact indicating a threat to the United States contained in the Resolution. The Resolution of 2002 makes the United States the U.N. enforcer.

On October 3, 2002, Rep. Ron Paul made a motion to declare war on Iraq during discussion on H.J. Res. 114. Then Chairman Henry Hyde (now deceased) rejected Rep. Paul’s motion:

There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events, by time. Declaration of war is one of them. There are things no longer relevant to a modern society. Why declare war if you don't have to? We are saying to the President, use your judgment. So, to demand that we declare war is to strengthen something to death. You have got a hammerlock on this situation, and it is not called for. Inappropriate, anachronistic, it isn't done anymore.

There are those who claim the resolution is the same thing as a declaration of war. If a formal Declaration of War is the same thing as a “Use of Force Resolution,” then why would Rep. Hyde make this comment? Why wouldn’t Hyde simply tell Rep. Paul, “Ron, get over it; it’s the same thing.” If it's the same thing, then why not declare war? The simple answer is that Hyde knew Congress must avoid declaring war or a state of hostilities because of Article 39 of the U.N. Charter. This article is now the repository of declarations: “The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression . . . .”

But this isn’t all nor the crux of the matter. Hyde’s initial statement that the President was to use his judgment is most troubling. First, like Hyde and the rest of those who voted for it, the President deferred judgment on use of force to the Security Council. Deferring judgment isn’t the same thing as declaring a thing to exist, here a state of affairs. There was and is no need to declare war against Al Quaeda because this state of affairs already existed. Not so with Iraq.

What is it that the 2002 Resolution purported to make known? That the Security Council declared the state of hostility? That the Security Council gave “life and effect” to the use of force? What threat to “National Security” is the President defending us against? The Court in Boumediene v. Bush had the opportunity to clear this matter up but it chose not to.

Boumediene v. Bush

The flaw in both majority and dissenting opinions in Boumediene v. Bush is apparent. The majority presume a legal state of war with Iraq while the dissent juxtapose this state onto radical Islamic jihaadists. We are now embroiled in a religious crusade and a war that was never intended to be a religious war. This leads to further problems. Even Scalia’s dissent attempts to correct the Resolution of 2002 by reciting incident after incident where the United States was attacked by terrorists at large. As Scalia once said, he is not a textualist. If he were, he would have written that the Resolution of 2002 is defective because it fails to indicate that Congress believes the United States is in a state of hostility or partial state of war. He would have no trouble writing that the government has no personal jurisdiction over the detainees because no “enemy” has been established by "declaring" who that enemy is. Detaining “terrorists” is far more problematic than detaining the enemy. We know the enemy when war is declared because a declaration tells us who we are going after. Right now, the “enemy” is not simply Al Quaeda but any radical, transatlantic, fundamentalist jihadist Islamo-facist group in their own country. What does that mean exactly? What is the definition of a “terrorist”? How do we determine these extreme answers?

CONCLUSION

Raising the Constitution and its requirement to declare war is seen as archaic by those who find it problematic to follow it. In support, it is argued that because we've got it wrong for 60 years, there is no need to acknowledge the right path. Consider this analogy: Because we've had slaves for 60 years, outlawing slavery is now archaic. Absurd? It makes no sense unless it is acceptable to disregard the oath to preserve the Constitution. Since when did we arbitrarily find it right and pure to pick and choose parts of the Constitution that we should enforce? Words mean something. If not, the oath itself is meaningless. Worse, the Republic is meaningless.

When one purposefully ignores the oath and treats it with little imperative, as Rep. Hyde knowingly did, one makes the law political, subject to the arbitrary whims of elections. The will of the People, the source of authority to govern embodied in the Constitution, is simply ignored. While the Iraq war required a declaration, the war against Al Quaeda did not. I leave you with Doug Bandow's nice summation:

But the U.S. Constitution, to which the president swears allegiance, refers not to the U.N. but rather to the American Congress. Article 1, Sec. 8 (11) states that "Congress shall have the power . . . to declare war." As Alexander Hamilton indicated, the president is commander-in-chief, but he is to fulfill his responsibilities only within the framework established by the Constitution and subject to the control of Congress.

Of this, there simply is no doubt. Wrote James Madison in 1793, it is necessary to adhere to the "fundamental doctrine of the Constitution that the power to declare war is fully and exclusively vested in the legislature." Modern supporters of the doctrine of president-as-Caesar make much of the fact that convention delegates changed Congress' authority from "make" to "declare" war, but they did so, explained Madison, only to allow the president the authority to respond to a sudden attack. When Pierce Butler of South Carolina formally proposed giving the president the power to start war, Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts said that he "never expected to hear in a republic a motion to empower the executive to declare war." Butler's motion was quickly rejected.

The reasoning of the conferees in opposing Butler's measure was simple. Explained Virginia's George Mason, the president "is not safely to be entrusted with" the power to decide on war. Mason therefore favored "clogging rather than facilitating war." James Wilson, though an advocate of a strong presidency, approvingly observed that the new constitutional system "will not hurry us into war." Instead, "it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress." Similarly, Thomas Jefferson wrote: "We have already given . . . one effectual check to the dog of war by transferring the power of letting him loose."

I readily admit to not being top-notch when it comes to keeping up with world events.  Unfortunately, I know enough for this film to be utterly terrifying.

A few months ago I was writing a paper on Children of Men and found out that many parts of the movie were inspired by viewings Cuaron had made of Algiers.  I added the film to my queue and forgot about it until it came in the mail.  The film is about the fight by an organization of Algerian citizens to become independent from France.  It was bloody, brutal, and possessing the camera techniques and story oddities that make it an understandable inspiration piece of the American New Wave directors of the '70s.  What made it so much heavier though, today, was that the events depicted could easily be seen on our news screens to a certain extent today and to a more escalated degree in a few years.  This time, however, it wouldn't be the Algerians fighting the French, but the Iraqis fighting the Americans and whoever else has put their foot in the dirt.

Related current events aside, the truly troubling thing here is the realization that we are not responsible for our actions.  Instead, we are obligated, as world citizens, to pay for the savagery of all others.  The majority of the people who are killed in attacks and bombings are not freedom fighters or paratroopers, but average people, drinking at the wrong bar, dancing at the wrong club and visiting the wrong friend.  A specific point is made to acknowledge the leader of the soldiers brought in to eradicate the forces leading the independence movement, Colonel Mathieu, was not only a resistance fighter against the Nazis, but is also a compassionate and intelligent man.  He expresses respect for someone who follows his convictions to the end, and for the the commitment of various fighters despite the fact that his people are the ones being slaughtered.  There is even a point when Mathieu is negotiating with a cornered leader and sends up a friend to talk the man down.  Before she goes though, he stops her saying "Careful, you'll get yourself shot" and then warns the leader that his friend is coming up, not a soldier.  There are plenty of people around, there is no reason for the Colonel to make this caution.  The point of it is that he has not ridden into this country with the hatred for an entire people and the intention of wiping them out.  He is merely a person intent on doing a job, and desiring to prevent more of his countrymen being killed.

Not that this excuses his actions.  Both sides have their fanaticism underscored, with the question being raised: when are you allowed to kill those who have done you no specific harm?  The answer, again, is that we are all guilty by association.  Regardless of personally feelings or expressed politics, we all exist in the possibility of being on the wrong side of the line.  Seen forty years later, this film is not so much a testament to the endurance of Algerian citizens, as it is a reminder that what some view as peaceful co-existence can explode at any moment.

Viewed via Netflix.

A few websites monitor and report on these atrocities, many of which go with little mention or unreported in the mainstream media. Two sites whose mission includes reporting on religious persecution are Compass Direct News and Persecution Blog

Here's a recent example of persecution. This from Compass Direct News:

ALGIERS, Algeria, May 9 – An Algerian Christian detained five days for carrying a Bible and personal Bible study books was handed a 300-euro (US$460) fine and a one-year suspended prison sentence last week, an Algerian church leader said.

On April 29, a court in Djilfa, 150 miles south of Algiers, charged the 33-year-old Muslim convert to Christianity with “printing, storing and distributing” illegal religious material. A written copy of the verdict has yet to be issued.

The Protestant, who requested anonymity for security reasons, told fellow Christians in his home city of Tiaret that police pressured him to return to Islam while in custody.

The conviction is the latest in a wave of detentions and court cases against Algeria’s Protestants and Catholics. Since January police and provincial officials have ordered the closure of up to half of the country’s 50 estimated Protestant congregations.

Officials in several instances have cited a February 2006 law governing the worship of non-Muslims. Clarified by subsequent decrees in 2007, the law restricts most religious meetings to approved places of worship and forbids any attempt to “shake the faith of a Muslim.”

On the morning of April 25, the Tiaret resident and eight-year convert to Christianity was stopped at a police roadblock in the vicinity of Djilfa while riding in a shared taxi. Officials took the convert into custody upon finding a Bible and several religious study books in his luggage.

A Christian from Tiaret told Compass that Djilfa police appeared to have previous knowledge of the Protestant’s Christian connections. Officers refused to let the convert call friends to let them know of his detention, naming a church member in Tiaret whom they claimed he would contact.

“We will call your family for you,” the officials said, according to the Christian source from Tiaret.

According to one Algerian human rights lawyer, police violated the convert’s rights by refusing him the telephone call.

“Any detained person has the right to call his family,” said the lawyer, who requested anonymity.

A leader from the Protestant Church of Algeria, an umbrella association for mainline and evangelical congregations, said that Christians remained unaware of the detainee’s location for several days.

Precarious Position

The Christian source in Tiaret said that Djilfa police verbally attacked the convert because of his faith during his five-day detention at city’s police station.

“They did not hit him, but they tried to convert him back to Islam,” he said.

Under Algerian law, police can detain a suspect up to 48 hours before bringing him before a state prosecutor, the human rights lawyer told Compass.

“It is not legal for them to hold him for five days,” said the lawyer, who clarified that any detention between 24 and 48 hours had to be approved by a state prosecutor.

After five days in Djilfa’s main police station, the Christian was brought before a state prosecutor and then a Djilfa judge. According to the convert, the judge convicted him of “printing, storing and distributing” illegal religious literature, though the charge remains uncertain until a written verdict is issued.

Before releasing him, the judge told the convert he would be given a 300 euro fine and a one-year suspended sentence.

According to the Tiaret Christian, the convert received the “printing” charge because he was traveling with a computer printer in his possession. The convert has yet to receive a written copy of the verdict, though observers said this was common in Algeria, as court verdicts are normally sent by mail following a ruling.

Because the sentence is suspended, the convert will only have to do jail time if convicted of another crime. But the Tiaret Christian said that the verdict constituted an ongoing threat to the Christian.

“A policeman could bring false accusations against him, that he gave one of them a Bible, and he would be thrown in jail,” the friend said.

Christians in Tiaret reported two separate instances in which undercover police officers pretended to be interested in Christianity and then detained Protestants for giving them Bibles.

Charges were thrown out for the first incident in March. In the second case a Tiaret court handed a Christian a two-year suspended sentence and a 100,000-dinar (US$1,540) fine on April 2. The written verdict was delivered on April 9.

At least five Christians from Tiaret have been detained or tried for Christian activities since January 2008.

According to unconfirmed reports, Tiaret police detained six more Christians today.

Christians constitute a tiny minority of Algeria’s population of 33 million. Catholics count several thousand congregants, mostly expatriates, while numbers for Protestants are less certain.

Conservative estimates place the number of Protestants at 10,000, though evangelism via satellite TV has reportedly led to a large number of isolated conversions unaccounted for in church attendance figures.

Source: Compass Direct News

____________________

DIGG Story

Not long after they set out a storm came up and separated their ship from the others. Pirates spotted it, chased and captured it, and carried the passengers to Algeria to be sold as slaves or ransomed.

Algiers was one of the most prosperous cities in the world then because of the pirates and the slave-trade.  It was as populous as Naples or Rome. Cervantes must have despaired as he was led in chains through the city on his way to an abandoned Turkish bath, where there were dozens of other captured Christians. Most were waiting to be auctioned off to Moorish kings or Turkish pashas; a few, the most important men, would be kept for ransom. Cervantes happened to be carrying letters of recommendation which made his captors believe he was a personage of some importance. That saved him and his brother from the auction block. A high ransom was fixed for them and they were treated less harshly.

For the next five years Cervantes lived as a prisoner in Algiers, waiting to be ransomed. His mother and father were not able to come up with the high ransom for him and his brother. Three times Trinitarian friars travelled to Algiers to negotiate with his owner Dalí Mamí, but he would not lower his price. Finally, for all the money the friars offered, Mamí agreed to let Miguel's brother go—but not Miguel.

He meanwhile tried to escape. One way was to secretly arrange to be picked up by a Spanish ship. The problem, besides the difficulty of contacting a captain who was willing to take the risk, was in getting to the coast. Cervantes actually pulled off a great escape from the baths, along with fourteen other captives. They hid in a cave above the coast for five months (or so a witness claimed ) until they were discovered. The gardener who had aided them and who probably fed them was hanged. Cervantes was put in chains but not for long. No one knows why he wasn't punished more severely. Perhaps it had to do with his new owner. About this time Dalí Mamí sold him for 500 gold escudos to a pirate-lord named Hassan. Why did Hassan buy him? What did Cervantes have to offer? In any case he kept trying to escape; and every time Hassan re-captured him, though he punished the others “barbarously”, he always seemed to go soft when it came to passing sentence on Miguel.

After moving heaven but not earth Cervantes' family finally managed to scrape together three hundred of the five hundred escudos Hassan had fixed for his ransom and they pleaded with the Trinitarian friars to try one more time to get him freed. “It won't work,” said the friars. “Three hundred is not enough. Hassan won't come down even one maravedí.” But they added on forty-five escudos from a donation and made the trip to Algiers. Cervantes wasn't the only man they were going to try to free. Hassan wanted five hundred escudos each for two other Spaniards and a thousand for someone named Palafox. There was no way to deal with Hassan—he could see the friars were loaded with cash and he supposed there was more where that came from.
So the friars decided to pay his price, the full five hundred escudos, and rescue at least one man: Miguel de Cervantes.

..

I'm not really sure where this whole "great lover" tag came from, but Boyer certainly did make some romantic movies, co-starring with some of Hollywood's top female stars: The Garden of Allah (1936) with Marlene Dietrich, Conquest (1937) with Greta Garbo, Love Affair (1939) with Irene Dunne, All This and Heaven Too (1940) with Bette Davis, Hold Back the Dawn (1941) with Olivia de Havilland.

Also, there was Algiers (1938) with the very beautiful Hedy Lamarr. This is the one where Boyer plays Pepe Le Moko, the role Jean Gabin originated in France; although it is generally attributed to Boyer, the ubiquitious phrase "Come with me to the Casbah" does not appear in the movie. Sad, very sad.

Perhaps Boyer's best known film, and perhaps his best performance, is in the 1944 thriller Gaslight with Ingrid Bergman. Deservedly I think, he was nominated for an Academy Award for this film (he had four nominations in his career); unfortunatley, he didn't win. Bing Crosby won that year for his performance in Going My Way, one of those Leo McCarey feel-good films. (Not that I have anything against Leo McCarey or Going My Way; it's just that I think Boyer's performance is much more powerful than Crosby's.) Boyer is another one of those great actors, like Cary Grant, who never won a competitve Oscar. Hard to believe!

Also, let us not forget that wonderfully hilarious gem from Neil Simon, Barefoot in the Park (1967) with Jane Fonda and Robert Redford. This has to be one of the funniest movies ever, not least because of the goofy and unexpected part played by Boyer as the upstairs neighbor, who woos Corie's mother with such bizarre eccentricity.

Ironically, Hollywood's so-called "great lover" was married to the same woman for 44 years. Pat Paterson, herself an actress, was his first and only wife. When she died of cancer in 1978, Boyer was so heart broken that he committed suicide with an overdose of barbituates just two days later. A tragic end, but he certainly left some great performances behind. Don't forget to check some of them out when you get a chance.

How are you? Notice anything? I’ve spelt your name correctly, was reading through some of your letters last night and noticed my mistake. I hope you are very well and enjoying life.

I began a letter to you yesterday but didn’t get very far with it, so have started again today. There’s been no mail for two days owing to the fact that now there’s only one aerodrome at Rome, where previously we had two nearer ones, consequently it’s a bit erratic, however if I wait for delivery it may be days before you hear from me, and as I can’t wait that long, am writing today, would have finished the letter I began yesterday had I known mail was so bad. It doesn’t look very cheerful for the winter if the roads become snowed up.

Nothing very exciting to tell you about since my last: I’m still on nights and simply working and sleeping, shall welcome a chance again to get into town, to get away from kitchens for a bit. Last night the film “To have & have not” was shown here, was on duty so missed it, that’s the one you said wasn’t bad, the fellows enjoyed it.

The weather has changed, there’s a boisterous half-gale blowing now. We had a gale warning on Wednesday night, followed by rain and thunder and a terrific gale which hasn’t abated much, tho’ the sun is shining rather weakly now.

I haven’t been ‘up’ very long, am not feeling too bad, apparently more used to these funny hours. Last night was rather busy, I had a cake to make for a patient’s birthday, sometimes we do things like that. Once in Algiers I made one for a chap with no legs and one arm, only 21 who was returning to England, he was very pleased. Tonight shall ice and decorate the top for him. I saw the staff sergeant first now and believe I shall have a busy night with jellies, baked custards etc to make, the sort of night I could do with one of your letters to make me work like six men!

We’ve had no further accidents at night I’m glad to say, things are very quiet, one of the Italian electricians who came for a chat and tea, turned out to be an ex-partisan, we had quite an interesting talk about jerry, and the hospital when he occupied it. These fellows, before disbanded wore green Tyrolean hats and were very common to see, they were very proud of their status and the fact they played in the war, the allies used to contact them with radio and drop supplies at night in the mountains.

About another twenty are going on leave this week, our new C.O. has changed the old leave list and now the names are drawn out of the hat every allocation that comes through, so nobody knows until a few days before who is actually going, that’s about forty in a month now. I may be lucky one of these weeks, the only likelihood of preventing 25 groups and under from not going, is if the limit is raised by a certain time, in which case if not drawn say in 2 or 3 months would not be able to go. At present, everyone with 18 months service overseas has been promised leave by Christmas. “I have me doubts” about this tho’, having heard similar rash promises before.

You really must excuse my writing today Renie, I’m writing on my knee, in this strong wind sitting out in the “garden”. It’s peaceful here anyway and one is far away from the chatter & noise. Just now I saw a very large rabbit trying to break through the fence. Thought it was a dog at first, could have caught it quite easily.

Wish you could see this hospital, you’d like it I think. The gardens are all wild now, with seats everywhere, plenty to choose from to write a letter. This is where the patients used to sit and enjoy the sun. Mussolini did some good for Italy, this is one of his “Societe de Fasciata Nationale” institutions, certainly an excellent place, was used mainly for consumption and lung complaints. There must be an awful lot of those troubles here in peacetime, and probably much more now. They’ll be glad to get them back again I expect; the last place we were at was also for TBs. One of Italy’s biggest places. The gardens there were neater than here, and the nightingales sang all day long. They probably do here too, only June is the end of their season.

I’ve never told you about the south part of Italy have I? Such squalor and poverty, and so many children. We were at Barletta near Bain, on the coast; used to go swimming quite a lot. We miss the sea very much, but oh! The smells and filth! No-one was sorry to come to the cleaner north; the kids down there used to clamber on the canteen fence, begging for cakes, and they were always hungry, you could tell. Once I saw some Italian men, literally fighting, amongst themselves, for a few odd broken biscuits, which were left at a railway station, after the troops had fed. So many things do leave impressions one never forgets.

The Jap war is full of surprises now, isn’t it, doesn’t look like lasting much longer now. There will be such a rush to return home, and inevitably things are going to be in short supply, take houses and furniture and utensils for just one item. Looks like having a bad few years unless people bear it cheerfully. I hate hearing people grumble unnecessarily don’t you?

I’ve enclosed a menu, thought you would be interested, don’t try to follow it, can’t be done on civvy rations! Pretty good isn’t it? They are all of similar standard, means lots of work for us at times.

At night we get lots of ‘scroungers’ in the kitchen, they look in for a ‘cup of tea and a sandwich’. They aren’t supposed to, being a patients’ kitchen only, the company cookhouse is in another building. I usually try to fix them up, perhaps I’m too soft hearted. They say I am (the other cooks), but I always think it’s better to do a good turn if possible. Sometimes, however, I lose patience, especially with chaps who go out to the cafes and come in late smelling of vino, and reeling all over the place. Some, in fact most chaps, are honest and straightforward, but there are some ‘dodgy customers’. I had two in last night, have never lost my temper, but they tempt one very much, especially the lies, fortunately really bad examples of this are rare. When we have a concert, there’s always a supper to prepare afterwards. We had “Harmony Two”, two Italians, soprano and a pianist, they entertained for two solid hours, and were very good. Had made chop chips peas toms: ice-cream jelly, but they couldn’t stop, very unusual for them, so the sisters had chips that night.

At Algiers we had very large parties to cater for, 20 or 30 artists. Our hospital was very big then, and two cooks and an Italian worked at night, one night I dropped 30 gallons of porridge on the floor! When the air-raids were on we worked by candles and pieces of oily string, phew! Don’t want to repeat those days.

There was a company meeting the other day, where everyone suggests improvements etc; they are getting more transport for the evenings to Bologna, Forti and St Marino (the neutral state). Also managing more entertainment. There’s a dance next Tuesday, sisters and civilians invited. I shan’t be there, on duty instead. Surprising the chaps who go about with Italian girls. One sergeant especially, brought her actually into the kitchen the other night. He’s either got wool in his eyes, anyway I think he’s a chump, it only means heartbreak etc: when we leave. Very few ever marry and then it’s a big gamble. I prefer to leave well alone. I don’t think our sisters are very glamorous, taken all round, they usually go for officers, though one or two have married privates, and they are then posted about! We make wedding cakes then!

What are you doing with yourself lately? Any good films, any biking? How’s Auntie Kitty, please give her my love.

I’m looking forward to your letters very much, although I told you not to spend too much of your spare time writing to me, I still hope you write just as much!

Will close now, until Sunday,

Cheerio, lots of luck and good wishes,

Fondest thoughts

Eric

I won’t ever forget to write as long as you want me to.

Please forgive the scrawl

I guess rewarding law breakers with amnesty never works out very well in the end.

In the 1930s, Kabylians moved in large numbers to Paris, where they established cafes where musicians like Cheikh Nourredine added modern, Western instruments like the banjo, guitar and violin to Kabylian folk melodies. Slimane Azem was a Kbylian immigrant who was inspired by Nourredine and 19th century poet Si Mohand Ou Mohand to address homesickness, poverty and passion in his songs, and he soon (like many Kabylian musicians) became associated with the Algerian independence movement.

By the 1950s, Arab classical music, especially Egyptian superstars like Umm Kulthum, had become popular and left a lasting influence on Kabylian music, specifically in lush orchestration. Cherif Kheddam soon arose with the advent of a Kabylian branch of Radio Algiers after independence in 1962. Female singers also became popular during this period, especially Cherifa, Djamilla and Hanifa.

Algerian independence did not lead to increased freedom for Kabylian musicians, and the Berbers soon included often covert lyrics criticizing the Ben Bella government. Many of these musicians were inspired by other singer-songwriters, including Joan Baez and Bob Dylan, Víctor Jara and Silvio Rodriguez. Idir, a Kabylian geology student, sang Kabylia's first major hit, which sold an unprecedented amount in Algeria and abroad, "A Vava Inouva" (1973). Ferhat, known for his politically uncompromising lyrics, and Aït Menguellet, known for his poetic and inspired lyrics, also became popular during the 1970s.

During the 1980s, Kabylian music evolved into sentimental, pop-ballads performed by groups like Takfarinas. Some of the inspiration for this evolution was the popularity of pop-rai internationally.

The 11th has become a day of choice for major Islamist terrorist attacks

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/11/africa/algeria.php

http://www.slate.com/id/2179800/

ALGIERS, Algeria (CNN) -- Rescuers are sifting through the rubble of the United Nations headquarters in Algiers hoping to find survivors after a powerful bomb ripped off the building's facade and leveled nearby U.N. offices.

Rescuers and bomb experts search for survivors in the rubble of a destroyed building.

It was one of two suspected car bombs that struck Algiers within 10 minutes of each other.

The death toll is unclear: the official government count is at least 26, but hospital sources in Algiers told CNN affiliate BFM-TV that 76 people were killed in the two blasts. A statement from the United Nations said 45 people were reported killed.

Algerian Interior Minister Noureddine Yazid Zerhouni blamed a militant Islamic group with ties to al Qaeda for the attacks, which also targeted a building housing Algeria's Constitutional Council and Supreme Court.

In a posting on an Islamist Web site, the group al Qaeda Islamic Maghreb claimed responsibility.

CNN could not immediately corroborate that claim, but the Web site is known to carry messages, claims and videos from al Qaeda and other militant groups.

In the posting, the bombers were identified as Sheikh Ibrahim Abu Othman and Abdel Rahman Abu Abdel Nasser al-Asimi. It said two trucks were filled with "no less than 800 kg (1,763 pounds) of explosives."

The group called the operation "another successful conquest and a second epic that the knights of faith have dictated with their blood, defending the wounded Islamic nation and in defiance to the Crusaders and their agents, the slaves of America and the sons of France."

At least 10 U.N. staffers were among those killed, according to U.N. spokeswoman Marie Okabe.

The offices of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees -- located across the street from the U.N. headquarters -- were leveled by a blast that struck about 9:30 a.m. (3:30 a.m. ET) Tuesday.

"Our offices are basically destroyed now, nothing works," UNHCR spokesman Ron Redmond said from its Geneva headquarters. Watch his full interview

He said rescuers are working into the night trying to get to the trapped U.N. workers. "It's a very serious situation still with the U.N. in Algiers," he said.

In a strongly worded statement, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemned what he called "an abjectly cowardly strike against civilian officials serving humanity's highest ideals under the U.N. banner."

"The perpetrators of these crimes will not escape the strongest possible condemnation -- and ultimate punishment -- by Algerian authorities and the international community," Ban said in the written statement.

He said he has sent senior advisers and other top U.N. officials to head to Algiers to assist in the investigation and rescue effort.

Most of those killed in the coordinated attacks were victims of the first suspected car bombing near the Constitutional Council -- which oversees elections -- and Supreme Court in the Algiers neighborhood of Ben Aknoun, according to the state-run Algeria Press Agency.

That blast struck a bus outside the targeted building, killing many of those on board, the news agency reported.

One man said he heard the first blast then the second exploded in front of him. "I saw the trees falling and the glass shattering in front of me. I had to run away from the car," he said.

Zerhouni said the attack was the work of the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC), the same group that took responsibility for an attack in April in downtown Algiers that killed 33 people.

That group also uses the name al Qaeda Islamic Maghreb after merging with al Qaeda earlier this year. It abandoned small-scale attacks in favor of headline-grabbing blasts after it joined with al Qaeda.

CNN International Security Correspondent Paula Newton said the merger combined the expertise of Algerian guerrillas with the operational ability of al Qaeda in North Africa, enabling the group to penetrate the usually extensive security in high-profile areas of Algiers.

She said the group's goal is to destabilize countries like Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia, which it sees as enemies of the Islamic state.

Zerhouni said police interrogations of GSPC members arrested in the wake of the April attack revealed that Algeria's Constitutional Council and Supreme Court were on a list of GSPC targets.

Algeria, which has a population of 33 million, is still recovering from more than a decade of violence that began after the military government called a halt to elections which an Islamist party was poised to win.

Tens of thousands of people died in the unrest. Although the country has remained relatively peaceful, recent terrorist attacks have raised fears of a slide back to violence

Algeria has been battling Islamic insurgents since the early 1990s, when the army canceled the second round of the country's first multiparty elections, ... Glance of recent attacks in Algeria International Herald Tribune http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/12/11/africa/AF-GEN-Algeria-Attacks.php

Algeria bombing stirs new fears of Al Qaeda-aligned terrorist group Christian Science Monitor http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1211/p99s01-duts.html

Algeria Bombs Kill 62; Government Blames Al-Qaeda Linked Group Bloomberg http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=axRmDvsSzxqw&refer=home

Twin Car Bombs Kill More Than 60 in Algeria Voice of Americahttp://voanews.com/english/2007-12-11-voa49.cfm 

Al-Qaida wing for North Africa says it's behind Algiers blasts
International Herald Tribune -
AP CAIRO, Egypt: The North African branch of al-Qaida said in an Internet posting it was behind the bombings in the Algerian capital on Tuesday, claiming also that 110 people were killed in the attacks carried out by two suicide bombers.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/12/11/africa/ME-GEN-Al-Qaida-Algeria-Bombing-Claim.php

Think about it though...What if you were on your way to your local Walmart and you get their to find half of the building crumbled, and 40+ people dead. Most of us have not even seen ONE person killed before our eyes.

Would you go out again? How traumatizing would it be to know that everytime you go to the grocery store there's a chance a car might blow up or a person may run in with a ticking bomb strapped to their chest? Madness!

Is America next?

[vodpod id=Groupvideo.615714&w=425&h=350&fv=] from drdapo.vodpod.com posted with vodpod

It's important to have something in your life characterized by gaping holes of incredulity that you still, despite those gaping holes, really enjoy. I keep a growing list of Grey's Anatomy improbabilities because one day, I'd like to sponsor a Grey's Anatomy Games (GAG), in which competitors test the feasibility of "character motivated" action: like Izzie eating an entire tub of butter. Or the time she stood outside the hospital for 12 hours--not even a bathroom break!--because she couldn't face the memory of Denny and his severed LVAD wire and the pathetic aftermath when she curled up in her Prom gown (because it was Prom night at Seattle Grace) cradling his dead body.

"Where does it hurt, Alex? In my feet."

In the Grey's Anatomy Games, the writers will actually try standing for 12 hours. I did that the summer I worked food service at Disney World, sweltering through layers of purple and maroon while pulling pizza tickets from a printer. I leaned against the wall any chance I got. Granted, Izzie wasn't wearing polyester in 100 degree heat, but surely she must have been tuckered out from the trauma of killing her boyfriend. At least give the girl a bench.

I find Meredith Grey to be a rather unlikeable character. She's selfish (monopolizes conversation), wears her bangs like she went to the gym but forgot to shower (Mer-hair), and speaks in tautologies ("I'm dating. I'm going out with men. I'm seeing people.") Mer-talk is a no-brainer. It's the language of cutesy presumption and casual acquaintance and alliterative weather-filler, all wrapped up in a tidy bow of metaphor. It's a language occasionally interspersed with smarty-pants medical terminology like "humpty dumpy procedure." Mer-talk is about getting the most mileage out of the least number of words:

Now that my own hair is long enough for a greasy pony-tail, I like pretending to be Meredith Grey. When I'm drunk. My Anatomy's friends know enough to play along.

Me: "Hey."
Friend: "Hey."
Me: "I'm drinking. A beer. Beer drinking."
Friend: "Work was hard today. I--"
Me: "What do you think about my love life? I'm drowning. In beer drinking. I'm drink-downing. I'm drink-dating. I have a dog."

On Grey's Anatomy, it's all hospital, all the time. Oh, except for that one episode when the entire male staff of Seattle Grace (including the Chief of Surgery) took leave to do a little camping and fly-fishing in upstate Washington.

On Grey's Anatomy, a lot happens. Quickly. In the span of a particular Season Two Weekend at Gurneys, Dr. Burke got shot, Denny died, Dr. Webber's niece was rushed to the emergency room for cancer, a Plague spread, and -- the straw that broke the intern's back -- Derek and Meredith euthanized their joint custody dog. I used to not want to live in Seattle because of all that rain, but it turns out it's also a highly dangerous city: a city prone to bombs and Code Blacks; to transportation disasters (train and ferry); to mass shootings; to plagues. A sad city where you sing your babe to sleep with The Blues and toss expensive jewelry overboard:

A Grey's episode is undiluted metaphor. Oh, to be a fly on the Shonda Rhimes storyboard! I imagine the writing process to be the love-child of Today's Special and Boggle: somebody throws out a word, and thus begins the mad rush to free-associate, to re-arrange letters to fashion plot. Let's say the special word is "Cake."

"Ok, girls, think CAKE and..go! Stomach ache. Have your cake and eat it, too. Wedding cake. A skin condition from caked on make-up. Caked artery. Avian Cake Disease. Izzie baking countless cakes---paincakes! Derek Hot Cake! McCake!"

Last night, I went to hear the poet Carl Phillips read at the 11th Street Bar. He's long been a favorite of mine---poems of such lyric richness, such imploring benediction, such pensive supplication, such...Grey's Anatomy narrative voiceover?

Oh god, I've been pop culture poisoned. But seriously. Pretend Meredith had written a book called "Tumors Go Missing," and she's at the podium taking nervous sips of white wine and pausing between line breaks.

Now picture Carl Phillips in a bathtub monologuing his poem "Cloud Country" over angsty Emo guitar. His publisher is, after all, Graywolf Press.

Oh, but Carl. You're still the better.

I already have my first registrations for my yearly dance and culture tour to Istanbul. If you have been considering coming, don't hesitate too long. This is a great experience to delve in deeply to the rich traditions of this many-faceted city and learn Roma dance at the source! Please see the Turkey Tour page on my website for more information.

http://api.flickr.com/services/feeds/photos_public.gne?id=26046991@N04&lang=en-us&format=rss_200