09.01.08 -- Shhhh!






Monday, September 1, 2008






It may be that SILENCEISGOLDEN (17A. “Shhhh!” prompter), MUMSTHEWORD (37A. “Shhhh!”) and MYLIPSARESEALED (59A. “Shhhh!” response), but there should be no secret that this is a delightful crossword puzzle!



Incidentally, there is more conversation in the crossword than “Shhhh” and its variations, including 15. ETTU, Brute?”; 3D. “Ecce homo!” utterer Pontius PILATE; NORUSH (34A. “Take your time”); LISTEN (53A. “Pay attention!”); 7D. “How sweet ITIS!”; PSHAW (31D. “I don’t believe it!”); 60D. “See YOU!” and 63A. What’s Love GOTTO Do With It” (Tina Turner #1 hit).



Brutus, Pontius Pilate and Tina Turner are kept company in the puzzle by ALPERT (32A. Herb who played “Tijuana Taxi”); AVA (41D. Actress Gardner); GINA (19D. Actress Lollobrigida); 64A. Rock’s IGGY Pop; LTS (61D. U.S.N. officers); MIA (25A. Actress Farrow); MINEO (16A. Actor Sal of “Exodus”); a NONCOM (18D. Sarge, for one); REVERE (48D. Paul with a midnight ride); SOTS (45D. Drunkards) and TARS (23D. Old salts).



Six-letter entries include ADIDAS (2D. Nike competitor); AMORAL (9D. Unconcerned with ethics); CITRUS (55A. Like oranges and tangerines); LATENT (22A. Present but not visible); NOSALE (1D. Key on an old register); ONEDGE (49D. Antsy); STOLEN (47D. Like some kisses and bases); TARIFF (42A. Tax paid at port); TRIPOD (44D. Camera stand); TSHIRT (21A. Top to go with shorts); and TVSETS (43A. Idiot boxes).



The short of it: ADANO, ALIVE, ATE, BERG, CAMP, CITE, CLOVE, DRAIN, ELSE, EON, ESE, HERO, INA, IND, IRS, LILT, MAID, MELD, MGM, MIST, MTS, MUSED, MUTT, NAPS, NEAR, NUDE, PEC, PERF, PSIS, ODIC, ROD, SAT, SCENE, SEGA, SLABS, SNEE, SRO, STET, SUSHI, SYR, VEE, WILL, WOLF and URGE.



Forget about work and the OFFICE (39D. Place to work) and have a wonderful Labor Day!







-----------------



For today’s cartoon, go to The Crossword Puzzle Illustrated.





Click on image to enlarge.



Puzzle available on the internet at


THE NEW YORK TIMES -- Crossword Puzzles and Games



If you subscribe to home delivery of The New York Times you are eligible to access the daily crossword via The New York Times - Times Reader, without additional charge, as part of your home delivery subscription.





Xword search information -- Across: 1. Siestas; 5. Greek letters that resemble pitchforks; 9. Vibrant; 14. Lyrical, like a Pindar poem; 20. Hersey’s “A Bell for ___”; 24. Words before fix or flash; 28. 180 degrees from WNW; 29. Kitschy; 36. Otherwise; 40. Bride’s ___ of honor; 42. Tax paid at port; 46. Three Little Pigs’ foe; 47. Sign of a hit show; 50. Precollege hurdle, for short; 51. Fishing stick; 58. Piece of garlic; 65. Ice in the sea; 66. Pondered; 67. Close to; 68. Snick and ___. Down: 4. Where it’s happening; 5. Chest muscle, for short; 6. Leave in, to an editor; 8. Japanese food; 10. Light tune; 11. Not Rep. or Dem.; 12. Victory sign; 13. Ages and ages; 25. Blend; 26. 1040 org.; 27. Had something; 30. Mixed breed; 33. B-way showing; 34. Naked; 35. Sandwich that requires two hands; 37. “Gorillas in the ___”; 38. Not just might; 40. Rushmore and Rainier: Abbr.; 52. Sink outlet; 54. Hunks of concrete; 55. Refer to; 56. Prod; 57. Nintendo rival; 59. “Grand Hotel” studio; 62. Damascus’s land: Abbr.



The week that buried the Jew World Order



The fall of the Berlin Wall seemed to herald the end of the Cold War and the emergence of a single superpower. A resurgent Russia's actions in Georgia have shattered that illusion.

When Gordon Brown sits down tomorrow at the conference table with the 26 other EU premiers in the glass-fronted Justus Lipsius building on Brussels's Rue de la Loi, the significance will not be lost on any of those present. The last time they sat in emergency session was in 2001, immediately after al-Qaeda's attack on America.


This time, they will be meeting to consider Russia's military actions in response to Georgia's attempt to retake South Ossetia. Those present are likely to agree with British Foreign Secretary David Miliband who declared last week that a new era in international relations was upon us: the post-post Cold War, as former US Secretary of State Colin Powell originally framed it. Russia's intention to absorb both South Ossetia and Abkhazia into the Russian Federation is being treated as a move of that magnitude.


History, to reverse Francis Fukuyama's pronouncement on its ending, has decisively begun again. The 'new world order' envisaged in the aftermath of the fall of the Berlin Wall, an order in which liberal democracies would proliferate across the world as the United States exercised a benign global hegemony, has proved to be a mirage. First 11 September and then the debacle of Iraq shattered that happy illusion nurtured in the thinktanks of Washington.


Now, in the space of a few weeks, Putin's tanks have buried it once and for all. In the face of protests, exhortations and furious remonstrations, Moscow acted as it saw fit in what it considers the Russian backyard, and damned the consequences, assuming there would be none of any note. This is no unipolar world, designed to Western specifications.


In Syria, Libya, even Turkey (a US and European friend) politicians and analysts have noted the consequences of the Georgian crisis - not for what Russia has done but for what the US, EU and Nato have been unable to do: exercise their power to protect an ally.


Trading of accusations has accelerated, with Russia's Prime Minister Vladimir Putin charging - in language that would not seemed out of place coming from the lips of dour Soviet Cold War-era Minister for Foreign Affairs, Andrei Gromyko - that the US had armed Georgia for war, and suggesting that US military advisers may have been present during fighting.


'I do think this is a pivotal moment,' says Stephen Flanagan of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, 'not least with Russia's rapid recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. It puts into question one of the fundamental assumptions of the post-Cold War era - you don't change borders. Or at least you don't if you're one of the key stakeholders.'


Flanagan's assessment is echoed by a senior European diplomat working on the Georgia crisis, who says: 'The widely held view among people who think about these things in Europe as well as Washington, was that Russia was determined to respect borders at the ending of the Soviet Union. That is the major change.'


But if there is agreement that one era of diplomacy has passed, there is less agreement over the nature of the new period and how to negotiate its uncertainies.


For Ivan Krastev of the Centre for Liberal Strategies - and Republican presidential nominee John McCain's foreign policy adviser, Robert Kagan - the Georgian crisis echoes the power plays of a century ago. 'Europe,' he wrote soon after the fighting, 'has entered a new 19th century, vapourising the end-of-history sentiment that shaped European politics in the 1990s and replacing it with an older, geopolitical calculus in a modern form.'


On the surface, at least, the return to gun-boat diplomacy appears confirmed by the spectacle of the warships of five nations cluttering the Black Sea, and US and Russian troops competing over two of Georgia's ports. But if a new Cold War is coming it is clear it will not be much like the old - or even the brief outbreak of conflict in Georgia. With a high oil price, £300bn in its reserves, European dependency on Russian energy, and wider dependency on Russian co-operation in issues like Iran and the Middle East, Russia is already well-armed with the weapons needed to fight this war.


While many analysts have taken the Kagan/Krastev line, others are sceptical of describing the new era solely in terms of a competition between the democracies and the autocracies. Clifford Gaddy of the Brookings Institution, who has met both Putin and George Bush on several occasions, believes that Georgia is a 'turning point' but is more cautious about apportioning the blame entirely on Putin and his vision of Russia.


'The Georgia crisis is not unique in itself. It has simply been the event that wakes people up to what has been already happening. I really think that many leaders in the West failed to acknowledge what was happening. I liken it to a financial bubble, and the implicit assumption was that Russia was weak. We considered multiple models for Russia, except for the outcome where Russia became strong and "bad" as defined in our terms of 'good' - which means "like us". No one considered this outcome because no one imagined oil at over $100 a barrel.'


Gaddy also rejects the idea that Russia is trying to re-establish an empire or bring back a Cold War similar in scope to the last. Instead, he sees the current crisis as the inevitable reaction to the experience of Putin and those closest to him over the question of Russia's 'security' during the 1990s - when Russia veered towards becoming a failed state.


That concern, existential in Russian society, Gaddy believes was too easily discounted by the West as a rhetorical device of domestic politics: 'Russia in the 1990s was close to being a non-entity. Survival as a grand power was an issue.'


Into this was interposed the issue of Nato expansion up to Russia's very borders, sold first by President Bill Clinton and then George Bush, as a mechanism for 'democratisation' that would guarantee security. Gaddy says: 'That push was counter-productive and largely responsible for what is happening today. If we push harder, [as Gordon Brown suggests] it will confirm Russia's worst fear over what Nato is about. That is what I am afraid of - by pushing ever-harder we end up in a dangerous place.'


The feeling that the world stands in the midst of a definitive reorganisation is shared in Russia. 'We are on the verge of a new Cold War,' argues Sergei Karaganov, a former adviser to Russian President Boris Yeltsin and now deputy director of the European Studies Institute in Moscow. 'It seems like a Cold War. I can only hope it will not be so deep.'


For Karaganov, the conflict between Russia and the West has been an inevitable consequence of a scenario that many American writers have recently turned their attention to - the relative decline in US power and the unipolar world that dominated throughout the 1990s - and the emergence of a multipolar world that US and British foreign policy has been slow to react to and acknowledge.


It is not just that the West and the EU has been losing infuence because of mistakes made in places like Iraq, says Karaganov. 'Russia has contributed to what is happening, too, by being too cocky in trying to restore its position in the world too quickly. Not so long ago we were almost a failed state. Now we are one of the world's three big powers again.'


There will be much noise generated by tomorrow's meeting in Brussels, the likely outcome is an agreement on a series of minor punishments - not enough to reverse what has happened in Georgia, but enough, it is hoped, to discourage Russia in the future.


Among them, it is expected, will be a review of joint Russian-EU partnership agreements; a declaration of support for Georgia's territorial integrity (if not necessarily its President Mikheil Saakashvili, who launched the attack that led to Russia's intervention); and consideration of new visa restrictions for Russians wanting to come into the Schengen Area.


What none will be able to ignore, in a grouping that gets almost a quarter of its energy from Russia, is that the EU - like the US - has few weapons in its armoury to punish Russia, except by attempting to shame it at a time when Moscow appears determined not to be embarrassed, its President, Dmitry Medvedev, declaring the country is not afraid of a 'new Cold War'.


There are a few unwilling to be drawn into comparisons with the last Cold War. Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Adviser to President Jimmy Carter, now a lecturer in US foreign policy, believes the solution to the crisis lies in old-fashioned capitalist economics, an influence notably absent in the days of the Soviet Union.


'It is serious, but it is neither fatal nor tragic. It is serious because Russia is going through a post-imperial crisis of leadership inspired by post-imperial nostalgia. It is not tragic or fatal, because Russia is not the Soviet Union. It is vulnerable, as the flight of capital from its stock market has already shown.


'The difference between Stalin and Putin is that Stalin commited great crimes on a great scale. Putin has committed petty crimes on a petty scale. And what is certain is that Russia's new business elite is not going to be happy if they think their bank accounts could be frozen or their children cannot study in the West. What is required is calm, deliberate ostracism.'



Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor
The Observer
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/31/russia.georgia

“Soviet Collapse” Revisited



As you know, the Boosh Administration party line on the present conflagration in the Caucasus is that Georgia is right and Russia is wrong. This position remarkably puts Boosh in bed with Obama, at least on this issue, because Senator Hussein’s chief handler is Zbigniew Brzezinski, who hired Jimmy Carter as President on behalf of David Rockefeller’s Trilateral Commission, and apparently has now been assigned to hire Hussein. Brzezinski certainly agrees with Boosh.


As I write, Senator Hussein must confront the recent assertion in federal court by Philadelphia attorney Philip Berg, a Democrat official, that he is not a natural born citizen. Attorney Berg says he has the documents to prove that Hussein was born in Kenya, not Hawaii, and therefore is not eligible to be President. Berg’s web site is obamacrimes.com. Go there and decide for yourself. If Hussein survives, we shall have much more to say about Zbig Brother.


Right now, let’s go back a few years and look at the “Soviet collapse,” which certainly figures in the Caucasus explosion. First, how do we know the Soviet Union “collapsed?” We know they collapsed because they said they did, and the bird brains in our Communist media have long parroted whatever the Soviets say. As I recall, the bird brains swallowed the Soviet bird seed whole.


Remember Mike Gorbachev. He’s the guy with the mark of Cain on his pate. One day, he was Soviet dictator. The next day, the Soviet Union “fell.” And the next day, Mike turns up – the envelope, please – in San Francisco, headquartered at the Presidio, the historic U.S. Army base, running a tax exempt foundation created before the Soviet “collapse.” Did somebody up there know something would happen?


We’re talking about the man who ran the “Evil Empire,” including the KGB torture chambers, the gulag archipelago, the man who thereby financed terrorism around the world, etc. Why did Washington do that? Did Mike repent? Had he now become a staunch advocate of American values and the Constitution? Not at all! In his books he explains that he is a lifelong Communist; that the change in the Soviet Union did not mean any change in his purpose, and that “perestroika” is simply a new way to impose Communism around the world.


Now Mike was an “ecologist.” His Gorbachev Foundation conducted meetings attended by George H.W. Bush and other world government conspirators, at which they discussed the questions of how many of the world’s people should be exterminated and how they should be killed to “protect the environment.” Ted the Traitor Turner (five children) says, for instance: “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” Strangely, Ted the Traitor has not volunteered for execution himself.


So, we’re talking about a scenario so incredible, so unbelievable, that those words, attempting to describe it, fall on their faces, inept. It would have been tantamount had Uncle Hitler or Uncle Heinrich been brought here from the bunker or the concentration camps and made a professor at Harvard. There should have been reams of copy about it. But remember that our Communist media swallowed it without a belch.


What should we have seen had the Soviet “collapse” been genuine? The answers are obvious when we compare it to the Nazi collapse at the end of World War II. First, remember that the Nazi concentration camps were liberated. The gates were opened; the victims streamed forth. We saw them. We saw American troops, aghast, holding their noses. We saw endless media coverage. In a genuine Soviet collapse, we should have seen the same thing in the Gulag.


But we did not. There was no liberation; there were no millions streaming forth, no tearful family reunions. Wasn’t that a huge story? But there was no coverage, not even an honorable mention. This must mean that the Gulag Archipelago is still intact, that the millions are still there and that there was no collapse.


Next, the German military was dismantled. The Wehrmacht was no more. Japan was disarmed as well. The same thing should have happened in the Soviet “collapse.” Did it? No. The Soviet military survived intact. Yes, something was said at the time about the destruction of some missiles, but those missiles were scheduled to be replaced. Their dismantlement had nothing to do with disarmament. The Soviets still are a formidable, military power.


Third, different people should now be running the show. In Germany, the Nazis were kicked out and hunted. Israel went to Argentina and kidnapped Eichmann. New names now ran Germany. Konrad Adenauer, “Der Alte,” was Chancellor. General Macarthur did the same thing in Japan. Togo’s militarists were gone. So who is in charge in Moscow now? Isn’t it Vlad the Impaler Putrid, Colonel, KGB (Soviet secret police)?


Yes, el presidente Jorge W. Boosh did look into Putrid’s eyes, saw into his soul and liked what he saw. By now Boosh presumably has changed his mind. Whom do you believe? Whatever, it does appear that the same people who ran the show before the “collapse” still run it now. And shouldn’t there be trials of the war criminals, of the men who ran the Gulag, as there were in Nazi Germany? Have there been any? No.


Finally, consider the fact that all this happened before. By 1921, the Reds, installed by Washington and the West and victorious over the Whites, were collapsing. There was starvation because “War Communism” forbade an economy. Soviet dictator Lenin backed up. He even wrote a book telling his fanatics it was okay to take a step or two backward if necessary to preserve Communism.


Lenin instituted the New Economic Policy, in which a little trade would not land you in jail. So-called “NEP men” appeared; traders who worked the angles and did a little business. Word arrived in the West that Lenin had “come to his senses.” Communism had “failed.” The Soviet system would be “restructured.” In Russian, you would probably call it “perestroika.”


Herbert Hoover, who seven years later became U.S. President, arrived in Moscow as head of the American Relief Administration, with tons of food. Investment capital poured in. The Soviets celebrated. Communism had been saved. The respite lasted three years, while Moscow digested. Then, strict Communism returned.


So, again, Washington installed the Communists in power and then saved them from collapse. The conspiracy for world government did so again in World War II. Indeed, please name for me a Communist dictatorship somewhere that was not created by the United States. Red China? Wrong. Communist Cuba? Wrong again. Zimbabwe. Wrong. I cannot think of one. The U.S. government has done more to advance Communism around the world than has any other country. Without the United States, Communism would be a footnote in a dusty history text.


So, what has been the fallout from the latest Soviet “collapse?” Investment capital has poured in again. The Soviets have enjoyed a diplomatic triumph. Their man Mike Garbageoff is now telling American industrialists what to do. Next to no attention now is devoted to Soviet sponsored terrorism. Now the focus is on “Islamic fundamentalism,” which mysteriously appeared at center stage while the Soviets disappeared in the wings, almost as if somebody planned the whole thing.


Remember that the Soviets invented the technique of recruiting, training, financing and launching front men to do their terrorism, while the Soviets pose as humanitarians. Remember that the nauseating Yassir Arafat, chief of the Palestine Liberation Organization and predatory sodomizer of little boys, was a lifelong Soviet employee. Of course Arafat is just one of many such examples.


The Soviets do not plan such things a mere year or two in advance. They are chess masters; they plan by decades, by generations. So, how does all this recent history relate to the explosion in the Caucasus? My answer will as always be clear and concise, a model of argumentation. I don’t know. Obviously there is a relationship; I do not yet know what it is. In time, maybe, its purpose will emerge. We can rely on the fact that, as usual, what we have been told is as phony as a one-dollar bill.


Right now we need to remember what happened. If you don’t know where you were and what happened, you will never understand how you got where you are now and you won’t know what to do. For now, what is clear is that we must reinstate American foreign policy, in which we mind our own business and insist that other nations mind theirs.


Sadly, we can depend on the fact that both sides of the conflict, in Moscow and Washington, are working to advance the cause of world government. So, we conclude this brief review with a question: Is the present stage production in the Caucasus a typical demonstration of dialectical materialism, in which the conspiracy for world government at the top is manipulating both sides?



Etherzone

OSC: Russia - Iran Alliance?


The USG Open Source Center translates an article from the Russian press proposing a strategic alliance between Russia and Iran.

The recognition of South Ossetia's and Abkhazia's independence by Russia is a timely step to protect these republics from new Georgian aggression. However, taking into account the United States' plans to expedite Georgia's and Ukraine's accession to the NATO military-political bloc, the situation near the Russian border remains alarming.


At the same time Moscow has a lot of possibilities to take balanced counter measures to the United States' and entire NATO's unfriendly plans. In particular, Russia can rely on those countries that effectively oppose the United States' and their satellites' expansion. Only collective efforts can help to create a situation which would, if not eliminate then at least reduce the risk of the Cold War's transformation into local and global conflicts.

For instance, Moscow could strengthen its military-technical ties with Syria and launch negotiations on the reestablishment of its military presence in Cuba. However, the most serious step which the United States and especially Israel fear (incidentally, Israel supplied arms to Georgia) is hypothetical revision of Russia's foreign policy with regard to Iran. A strategic alliance presuming the signing of a new large-scale military political treaty with Iran could change the entire geopolitical picture of the contemporary world.

New allied relations may result in the deployment of at least two military bases in strategic regions of Iran. One military base could be deployed in the north of the country in the Iranian province of Eastern Azerbaijan and the other one in the south, on the Island of Qeshm in the Persian Gulf. Due to the base in Iran's Eastern Azerbaijan Russia would be able to monitor military activities in the Republic of Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey and share this information with Iran.

The deployment of a military base on the Island of Qeshm would allow Russia to monitor the United States' and NATO's activities in the Persian Gulf zone, Iraq and other Arab states. With the help of special equipment Russia could effectively monitor whois sailing toward this sea bottleneck, from where, and with what cargo on board to enter the World Ocean or to return.

For the first time ever Russia will have a possibility to stop suspicious vessels and ships and inspect their cargo, which the Americans have been cynically doing in that zone for many decades. In exchange for the deployment of its military bases Russia could help the Iranians to deploy modern air defense and missile defense systems along the perimeter of its borders. Tehran, for instance, needs Russia's modern S-400 SAMs.

The Iranian leadership paid close attention to reports stating that the Georgian Government's secret resolution gave the United States and Israel a carte blanche to use Georgian territory and local military bases for delivering missile and bomb strikes against Iranian facilities in the event of need. Another neighbor, Turkey, is not only a NATO member, but also a powerful regional opponent and economic rival of Iran.

In addition to this, the Republic of Azerbaijan has become the West's key partner on the issue of transportation of Caspian energy resources to world markets. The Iranians are also concerned at Baku's plans to give Western (above all American) capital access to the so-called Azerbaijani sector of the Caspian Sea, which is fraught with new conflicts, because the legal status of the Caspian Sea has not been defined to date.

Russia and Iran can also accelerate the process of setting up a cartel of leading gas producers, which journalists have already dubbed the "gas OPEC." Russia and Iran occupy first and second place in the world respectively in terms of natural gas reserves. They jointly possess more than 60 percent of the world's gas deposits. Therefore, even small coordination in the elaboration of a single pricing policy may force one-half of the world, at least virtually entire Europe, to moderate its ambitions and treat gas exporters in a friendlier manner.

While moving toward allied relations, Russia can develop cooperation with Iran in virtually all areas, including nuclear power engineering. Russia can earn tens of billions of dollars on the construction of nuclear power plants in Iran alone. Tehran can receive not only economic, but also political support from Russia in the development of its own atomic energy sector.

In addition to this,in view of the imminent breakup of the CIS from which Georgia already pulled out, Russia could accelerate the process of accepting Iran as an equal member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). By accepting Iran, one of the key countries of the Islamic world, the organization could change fundamentally both in terms of its potential and in terms of its regional role.

Meanwhile, as an SCO member Iran will find itself under the collective umbrella of this organization, including under the protection of such nuclear states as Russia and China. This will lay foundations for a powerful Russia-Iran-China axis,which the United States and its allies fear so much.

(Description of Source: Moscow Vremya Novostey in Russian — Liberal, small-circulation paper that sometimes criticizes the government)


http://www.juancole.com/2008/08/osc-russia-iran-alliance.html

08.31.08 -- The First Lady of the Theatre -- the Acrostic


Actress Helen Hayes in her Hanna Theatre role of Queen Victoria during the 1937 production of "Victoria Regina." During the course of the play, Hayes had to age six decades to portray the monarch during her entire life.
-----------------

Sunday, August 31, 2008

ACROSTIC, Puzzle by Emil Cox & Henry Rathvon, edited by Will Shortz

Helen Hayes, the First Lady of Theatre, provides today’s acrostic quotation. Rarely do I come across an acrostic quotation that I know almost by heart -- but today’s is one! Having worked in theater all of my life, it is probable that I have cluttered my mind with too much "showbiz". That aside, it is always a delight to come across a quotation as sad-but-true yet humorous as this old friend!


The quotation: IT IS DIFFICULT FOR A STAR TO OCCUPY AN INCH OF SPACE WITHOUT UNBALANCING A PLAY NO MATTER HOW SELF-EFFACING HE MAY BE HE MAKES AN ENTRANCE AS A CASUAL NEIGHBOR AND THE AUDIENCE INTEREST SHIFTS TO THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR

The author’s name and the title of the work: HELEN HAYES ON REFLECTION

The defined words: HOTFUDGE (A. Soda fountain supply [2 wds.]); EASEMENT (B. Right to use another’s land); LASTSTRAW (C. Cause of snapping? [2 wds.]);
ECORCHE (D. Anatomical depiction of a body without its skin); NINAFOCH (E. Dutch-born actress in “An American in Paris” [2 wds.]); HUMPBACK (F. Sort of rorqual known for singing); APHORISM (G. “Predigested wisdom,” to Ambrose Bierce); YUCATAN (H. Mexican peninsula or state); ESCAPADE (I. Fun and daring adventure); SHERIDAN (J. Wyoming town named for a Union general); OUTOFTHEWAY (K. Far from any hustle and bustle [hyph.]); NATASHA (L. “War and Peace” heroine); REBUFF (M. Snub or slight; turn away); ECHINATE (N. Prickly, like a porcupine); FASTLANE (O. Metaphorical venue for jet-setters and high rollers [2 wds.]); LUSHLIFE (P. Billy Strayhorn jazz classic [2 wds.]); EXOTIC (Q. Nonnative plant or animal); COGITATE (R. Put on your thinking cap); TYROSINE (S. Amino acid from which melanin derives); INASNIT (T. Disgruntled, peeved, miffed [3 wds.]); OLDENBURG (U. Sculptor of Philadelphia’s monumental “Clothespin”); NONFICTION (V. Pulitzer category won twice by Barbara Tuchman).


For the record, the full quotation reads: “The flattering, if arbitrary, label, First Lady of the Theatre, takes its toll. The demands are great, not only in energy but eventually in dramatic focus. It is difficult, if not impossible, for a star to occupy an inch of space without bursting seams, cramping everyone else’s style and unbalancing a play. No matter how self-effacing a famous player may be, he makes an entrance as a casual neighbor and the audience interest shifts to the house next door.”


Click on image to enlarge.

Puzzle available on the internet at
THE NEW YORK TIMES -- Crossword Puzzles and Games

If you subscribe to home delivery of The New York Times you are eligible to access the daily crossword via The New York Times - Times Reader, without additional charge, as part of your home delivery subscription.



08.31.08 -- OT


Sunday, August 31, 2008

Puzzle by Alan Arbesfeld, edited by Will Shortz

Adding OT (Over Time, e.g., Extra Play) to say it ain’t so, all the same, crystal ball, big business, school marm, lo and behold, Bard of Avon, and an act of God, produced today’s interrelated entries of SAYITAINTSOOT (23A. Plea made to a chimney sweep?); ALLOTTHESAME (38A. Distribute equal amounts?); CRYSTALBALLOT (58A. Vote involved in a 15th wedding anniversary?); BIGOTBUSINESS (76A. Narrow-minded affairs?); SCHOOLMARMOT (95A. Teacher’s pet?); LOOTANDBEHOLD (112A. Stop to admire one’s pillaging?); BARDOTOFAVON (17D. Sexiest bell ringer?); ANACTOFGODOT (62D. Part of a Beckett play?).

Other across entries and their clues: 1. Pep rally shout, GOTEAM; 7. Sics on, LETSAT; 13. More than a favorite; SUREBET; 20. Program begun under Kennedy, APOLLO; 21. Digs, ISINTO; 22. Single advancement, ONEBASE; 25. Holding one’s own, NOWORSE; 26. Topic in a golf lesson, STANCE; 27. Pancho’s pal, CISCO; 29. Colonial John ALDEN; 20. Moving, ASTIR; 30. EATSA hole in (corrodes); 35. Graduation deliveries, ORATIONS; 37. Jobs for some underwriters, for short, IPOS; 41. “The Daughter of Time” novelist, 1951, TEY; 42. Friendliness, WARMTH; 44. “BESAME Mucho” (1944 #1 hit); 45. 1968 live folk album, ARLO; 47. Humorist Sedaris, AMY; 48. Sub, HOAGIE; 51. Maximum extent, hilt; 53. Pushover, SOFTY; 59. Recipient of a lettera amorosa, CARO; 60. Missile Command maker; ATARI; 63. Floors, KOS; 64. Sounds from a hot bath, AHS; 65. Subject to loss on a laptop; UNSAVED; 67. Follies, LUNACIES; 68. Genetic letters, RNA; 70. Have no accomplices, ACTALONE; 71. Done, ATANEND; 72. Three times a day, on an Rx, TID; 73. Thurman of “The Avengers”, UMA; 74. Title role for Streisand, YENTL; 75. Mire, MUCK; 80. Kitchen appliance brand, OSTER; 82. When doubled, an old sitcom sign-off; 83. Blasts from the past, briefly, NTESTS; 84. Payroll fig., SSN; 87. N.B.A. star Lamar ODOM; 89. Act as a go-between, LIAISE; 91. Main lines, AORTAE; 93. Peter Pan rival, JIF; 99. Commercial prefix with jet, AERO; 100. One making an impression, ENGRAVER; 102. Poet who wrote “She walks in beauty, like the night”, BYRON; 103. Belong, FITIN; 104. Blacksmith, often, SHOER; 105. Race of Norse deities, AESIR; 108. Picks up, LEARNS; 110. More like a bubble bath, SUDSIER; 117. Hams, EMOTERS; 118. World capital said to have been founded by King Midas, ANKARA; 119. Muse of astronomy, URANIA; 120. “Hmmm…”, LETSSEE; 121. Theater annoyance, BEEPER; 122. Manager, GETSBY.

I’ll leave out the much more interesting downs so that this doesn’t run into OT!

-----------------

For today’s cartoon, go to The Crossword Puzzle Illustrated.


Click on image to enlarge.

Puzzle available on the internet at
THE NEW YORK TIMES -- Crossword Puzzles and Games

If you subscribe to home delivery of The New York Times you are eligible to access the daily crossword via The New York Times - Times Reader, without additional charge, as part of your home delivery subscription.


Xword information -- Down: 1. Oomph; 2. W.W. II agcy.; 3. Movie with the repeated line “To infinity, and beyond!”; 4. Snobbery; 5. Site of many kisses; 6. Sound from a dungeon,;7. Hereditary’ 8. Around 1,000, e.g.: Abbr.; 9. Word repeated in Emily Dickinson’s “___ so much joy! ___ so much joy!”; 10. Winter vehicles with treads; 11. Yours, in Nemours; 12. Day care charges; 13. State in the Sierra Madre; 14. Game with Wild Draw Four cards; 15. Runs the hose over again; 10. Stopping place in a Carlo Levi title; 18. Ancient Jewish ascetic; 19. Lilliputian; 24. Home of the world’s northernmost capital: Abbr.; 28. “I Never Played the Game” writer; 30. Sanyo competitor; 31. ___ blocker; 33. “This Boy’s Life” author Wolff; 34. Nerve material?; 36. Health org.; 38. Stern cry?; 39. “Very funny!”; 40. Oscar winner Jannings and others; 43. Again and again?; 46. Spots; 49. Showed hospitality at the door; 50. Bygone muscle cars; 52. They have substantial bills; 54. Sen. Lott; 55. Mountain air; 56. Got started, with “up”; 57. Alternative to a hotel, briefly; 58. Cable channel whose first showing was “Gone With the Wind”; 60. John Wayne film, with “The”; 61. “Swan Lake” garb; 66. Makes an assertion; 68. Tchaikovsky’s Symphony No. 8 ___ minor; 69. Mass, for one; 70. Gallic girlfriend; 72. “Pagliacci” clown; 73. Guam, e.g.: Abbr.; 77. Aplenty; 78. Take back; 79. Ministre d’ ___; 81. You can count on them; 84. Texas toppers; 85. Delhi wrap; 86. Bygone Dodge; 88. Early 12th-century year; 90. What turned-out pants pockets may signify; 92. Slicker accessory; 93. Toastmaster General of old comedy; 94. Bury; 96. Last ride?; 97. Hungarian playwright known for “Lilliom”; 96. Like a line, briefly; 101. Pauses; 103. Partner in a French firm, maybe; 106. Hunk; 107. Actress Skye; 109. Put ___ in one’s ear; 111. Prior to, in verse; 113. Select; 114. We may precede this; 115. Ad ___; 116. Box on a calendar.



Georgian Crisis 'Decisive Moment' in Russia-West Ties


Georgia is emerging battered but defiant from its recent military confrontation with Russia. Russian troops still control significantly more Georgian territory than they did a month ago and no one can answer the key question: How can the occupiers be forced to leave? But Georgian officials are openly gleeful over Moscow's diplomatic isolation, as its friends decline to join the Kremlin in recognizing the independence of two breakaway Georgian regions. VOA correspondent Peter Heinlein in Tbilisi reports that Georgians are beginning to see a silver lining in the clouds of war that still hang over their tiny but strategically-located nation.

Georgia's fate is still a very big question mark. Russia has issued a blunt challenge to the West to stay out of its Caucasus backyard. And there are serious doubts that Europe and the United States have the political will to make the Russians go home.

The former president of Georgia's parliament, Nino Burjanadze, who now is a strong government critic, maintains it was a mistake to challenge Russia's provocative military actions in the breakaway South Ossetia region in early August. "I think we already lost the war, and I'm afraid there is no military solution of this situation," he said.

But Burjanadze says Russia has also emerged a loser. "When I said we Georgians are not winners in this conflict, it does not mean Russia has won," he said. "Russia showed once again its real face, that it preferred to be the gendarme in international relations and not to be a distinguished member of the international community that will be respected."

President Mikheil Saakashvili's political rivals say he will have a lot of explaining to do if and when the crisis subsides. In the short term, almost all agree that the Kremlin's intense dislike for Mr. Saakashvili has made his position at home more secure.

But in the longer term, political analyst Archil Gegeshidze says Russia will surely succeed in creating internal political instability in Georgia.

"In due course, I expect there will be some new waves of mass protests here in the country," he said. "To what extent this government will be able to survive those protests remains to be seen. But it is obvious there will be some internal political instability."

Nonetheless, Georgians are increasingly hopeful that the final outcome of their confrontation with Russia will be to their advantage. For one thing, Western countries that until recently had all but forgotten the Caucasus are again recognizing Georgia's critical strategic importance.

The European Union is holding a summit to discuss how to respond to Russia's intervention. The United States has poured tens of millions of dollars of humanitarian assistance and uncounted military aid into Georgia, and it has sent several senior officials to Tbilisi, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Democratic Party vice presidential candidate Joe Biden. Vice President Dick Cheney is expected to arrive next week.

Georgia's minister for European integration, David Darchiashvili, says the crisis has prompted the government to accelerate its move to embrace, and be embraced by, western institutions.

"Until recently the top priority was NATO integration," he said. The EU is not as high a priority. But now what has happened, since the EU is playing the very important role, Europe's weight will increase in Georgia, and Georgia will be heading toward European integration more seriously."

Darchiashvili says the government is becoming increasingly confident that it did the right thing in confronting Russia, and that it will be able to defend itself against domestic critics.

"I am ready to answer any questions," he said. "I do not see any major breach from our side, the principles we stayed for years. We do not want to confront Russia with it's huge resources, but it's Russia that wants to reconquer Georgia. So we should not defend ourselves?"

Officials here have hardly been able to contain their glee at the diplomatic rebuff Russia has suffered, as close friends such as Belarus, Cuba and Venezuela have shied away from endorsing Moscow's recognition of independence for the breakaway Georgian territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

National Security Director Alexander Lumaya says this kind of international response could force Moscow to think twice about its actions.

"Russia found itself close to complete international isolation," he said. "It's not something they feel comfortable with. So the path of development of this situation and whether they will apply this invasion pattern to other countries in the neighborhood would depend on how strongly the international community would pursue the line it has taken."

A big test comes on Monday when European Union leaders are scheduled to launch what is expected to be a full-scale review of relations with Russia. While news reports from Paris indicate there will be no decision on sanctions, the meeting is giving Georgians hope that the Kremlin will be made to answer for its invasion.

Analyst Archil Gegeshidze sees Russia's move in Georgia as payback to the West for the Kremlin's perceived humiliation on issues such as Western recognition of Kosovo's independence, and expanding the NATO alliance up to the Russian border.

Gegeshidze calls this a "moment of truth".

"This is a very decisive moment. Either Russia succeeds and the West fails, or West succeeds and Russia fails," he said.

Georgians say if Europe and the United States can muster the political will to stand up to Russia, and if Georgia is soon invited to begin the process of joining NATO, and if sufficient aid arrives to start the process of rebuilding, the outcome of the current crisis could be decidedly positive.

But some analysts say those are some big 'ifs.'


http://voanews.com/english/2008-08-30-voa9.cfm

New `Cuba Missiles Crisis' in Europe:Are We Headed Toward World War III?


Either there is an immediate halt to the imperial geopolitics-driven provocations against Russia—such as the attack on South Ossetia by the British puppet-regime in Georgia, and the U.S.-Polish agreement to station anti-ballistic missile defense systems and a U.S. base in Poland—or the strategic situation could very quickly escalate into a Third World War.


Driven by the progressive meltdown of the world financial system, the British Empire faction's drive to encircle Russia and China and force them to capitulate, is playing with fire—a dangerous game of Vabanque, which could result in the destruction of human civilization. This policy, British in origin and carried out with American help, includes a possible military strike against Iran—an option which is by no means "off the table."

Considering the monstrous destruction and horror wrought by the two world wars of the 20th Century, it is truly unfathomable how little public courage our political leaders have shown in the face of this threat—a threat which only an imbecile could fail to recognize. I suppose it's better than nothing, when one politician or another asserts that we shouldn't break off relations with Russia because we still have common security interests, such as with regard to Iran. But, why hasn't a single current or former minister or parliamentarian shown the courage to publicly denounce this strategy of confrontation against Russia and China, and to demand that Germany distance itself from it?

Dmitri Rogozin, the Russian Ambassador to NATO, summed it up when he responded to reporters in Brussels by asking: "Are you ready to risk your prosperity and your lives and the lives of your children for the sake of Saakashvili?" He might as well have referred to the latter by his nickname "Sorosvili," since George Soros, and his business partner at the Quantum Fund hedge fund, Mark Malloch Brown—more recently Lord Malloch-Brown—have been funding every single member of the Georgian government, from the Cabinet level down to the lowest-ranking police officer, to the tune of millions, ever since the so-called Rose Revolution. Shouldn't Germany's BND foreign intelligence agency be capable of recognizing such an obvious operation by the British secret service? This ban on thinking had better be lifted soon, before World War III erupts.

The British Strategy
Georgia's British-inspired aggression was aimed at humiliating Russia, weakening it, isolating it from the West, and driving a wedge, once and for all, between Russia and the United States, in order to destroy the potential for U.S.-Russian cooperation in the tradition of Franklin Roosevelt. The report by the French military secret service DRI, that it was American officers who had been active in the bombardment, and that it was American military advisors who had been embedded in the Georgian Army in aiming the "Grad" multiple rocket launchers, is only apparently contradictory: The paradox disappears, once we consider H.G. Wells' theory that the United States must become permeated with British-imperial doctrine.

This extremely high-risk Anglo-American policy is evidently going to be continued, even following Saakashvili's miscalculation in his first strike against South Ossetia. As Gen. Col. Anatoly Nogovitsyn, deputy chief of Russia's General Staff, stated at a press conference on Aug. 22, Georgian units are already busy with reconnaissance missions and preparations for new armed actions. He added that the presence of NATO warships in the Black Sea, which is controlled by the Russian Navy, is neither necessary nor useful. The agreement between the United States and Poland on stationing anti-ballistic missile systems, hastily signed as an answer to the Russian counterstrike against Georgia, irrefutably demonstrates what a glance at the map also makes clear: The target is Russia, and not some distant "rogue states."

Russia reacted immediately by announcing an asymmetric response to these ABM systems: an air missile defense system in which Russia, Belarus, and Russia's Baltic enclave Kaliningrad are to participate. If that should come to pass, and provided that the Polish and Czech parliaments ratify the plans to install the respective ABM systems and radar stations, then we will have a reverse Cuba Missiles Crisis in Central Europe, with Russian and U.S. troops facing each other on the border, but with considerably shorter warning times than in the 1980s, when the Warsaw Pact's medium-range SS20 missiles were arrayed against NATO's Pershing IIs. Chancellor Helmut Schmidt was right when he said at the time, that the world was on the brink of a third world war. Today that is even more true.

The recognition that we would be at war with Russia today, had Georgia and Ukraine been granted NATO membership at NATO's summit earlier this year in Bucharest, should be sufficient incentive to renounce all further eastward NATO expansion once and for all. And we should bring to mind how it has come about, that Russia (and China) have so suddenly been built up as an enemy image.

Let us also recall that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, we threw away our opportunity for putting the East-West relationship onto a completely new footing. On geopolitical grounds, Western policy was instead oriented toward using "shock therapy" as a means of transforming Russia into a raw materials-producing Third World country. Western oligarchs had great sympathy for their Russian partners, and for the Yeltsin clan, and together they looted the country of its wealth. Having Russia as a kind of infinite stockpile of raw materials for the West, as an integral part of the globalized economy, was not seen as a problem. And George Soros's role has never been forgotten in Moscow.

It was only when President Vladimir Putin succeeded in gradually suppressing the influence of the mafia structures, while strengthening Russia economically and politically, and defending the country's sovereign interests, that Russia was once again declared to be the enemy. The Russian government, with its decisive action against Georgia, was in fact demonstrating that the era of globalization, i.e., of the Anglo-American empire, has come to a close.

Europe and the Lisbon Treaty
While French President Nicolas Sarkozy has played a useful role, with his six-point program, in de-escalating the war between Russia and Georgia, his conclusion that Europe could have acted more effectively had the Lisbon Treaty already been adopted, is all the more confusing. What if, for example, the European President had been Tony Blair, and the ambassador had been David Miliband or Giuliano Amato? In that event, the European Union would most likely already be at war with Russia today. The British Centre for European Reform is already calling for setting up EU combat units, so that we can wage our wars in Central Europe on our own, without the United States.

As the Italian journalist Paolo Bozzacchi has reported in the weekly Oggi, in the aftermath the Italian Parliament's ratification of the EU treaty, the Brussels EU bureaucracy is feeling a new surge of confidence, and now thinks that they could have the treaty signed, sealed, and delivered before next year's elections for European Parliament—despite Ireland's "No" vote.

That would be the worst possible outcome, because the design of the Lisbon Treaty, which foresees the militarization of the EU, along with the abolition of parliamentary democracy and the establishment of an oligarchical dictatorship in a federal state that could do whatever it pleased, stems from the same motivation as the policy of encirclement of Russia and China. The idea that Europe has to be transformed into a militarized empire, in order to meet "the great challenges" (by which is meant Russia, China, and, in the view of some, the United States), is a sure-fire recipe for World War III.

The events in the Caucasus should be enough to extinguish enthusiasm anyone might have for this monstrous Tower of Babel. Germany's best contribution to world peace would be to put its entire weight into reversing the process which was started with the Maastricht Treaty. We should revoke all EU treaties that have been adopted since then, and should devote our regained sovereignty to working jointly with Russia, China, India, and, hopefully, the United States, in order to establish a New Bretton Woods system, as has been proposed by Lyndon LaRouche.


Executive Intelligence Review.


Iran warns any attack would start 'world war'

Clear Warning To NATO


As the attention of the America public is focused on the American election, with the Democratic Convention having just ended, and the announcement today of McCain's female running mate, and the Republican Convention next week, the public has missed something. Something not missed by Europeans, even mainstream European news media have given broad coverage to the story.


Just a minor story, really, no need to turn your attention away from the political puff that is American electoral politics. Just something about Russia (you know the big country with tens of thousands of nuclear weapons and advanced delivery systems) and a clear WAR WARNING TO NATO.

In what is the most serious international crisis since the Cuban Missile Crisis almost caused World War III forty-five years ago, Russia has issued a War Warning to NATO and America. "If NATO suddenly takes military actions against Abkhazia and South Ossetia, acting solely in support of Tbilisi, this will mean a declaration of war on Russia," said the Russian Ambassador to NATO, Mr. Dmitry Rogozin. Further, Russia is making it clear that military assistance to Georgia will be considered an act of war. Ambassador Rogozin likened the current crisis to the fevered diplomatic atmosphere in Europe just before the start of the First World War. World War I was said to start when "the lights went out in the chancelleries of Europe" and diplomatic measures failed.

A top Russian military figure, the President of the Academy of Geopolitical Studies (in Moscow) Colonel General Leonid Ivashov said "We are close to a serious conflict". With regard to the Georgia-South Ossetian conflict, General Ivashov said that one of the principal goals of NATO's "geopolitical operation" was to neutralize Russia as a global player in the run-up to a war with Iran.

The British publication, 'This is London', calls the Russian position, as articulated by Ambassador Rogozin, an "extraordinary warning to the West".

Another leading London newspaper, 'The Mail', said "Tensions between Russia and the West were ratcheted even higher today after Moscow warned that the American naval build-up in the Black Sea could be seen as a 'declaration of war'."

While I am not heading for the nuclear bomb shelter, I do think that this is serious. One of the main fears has been what the crazy neo-con Administration of George Bush and Dick Cheney would do in its final months in power. Would they begin yet a third war, this time with an Iran armed with advanced biological weapons of mass destruction capable of killing maybe a third of the human race? The answer to that is still up in the air, but it appears that the overall answer is much worse than anyone thought.

The Bush Administration funded a buildup of the Georgian Army and recently sent about a thousand US Marines to train the Georgian troops. Israel and the United States sold a large amount of military technology and hardware to Georgia. Israeli companies, headed by reserve Israeli generals, brought in excess of a thousand Israeli mercenaries into Georgia and two senior, recently retired Israeli generals provided senior command "consulting" to the Georgian General Staff. All of this turned very ugly, when on 8/8/08 the Georgian forces attacked lightly armed Russian peace keepers along with many innocent Russian civilians using volley fire from massed tubeless artillery. Over 1,400 men, women, and children were killed in their own homes without warning, in the opening minutes (with over 2,000 killed in the five day war). In response to this, Russia sent in her troops and most Georgian troops retreated (some "retreated" so fast that they threw away their uniforms, guns, and equipment as they ran home).

The Russians, by most accounts, behaved well and stopped short of the Georgian capital. However, to hear the neo-con political leaders in the United States, France, and the United Kingdom tell it, the Russians attacked a defenseless nation that had done nothing to provoke the attack. Increasingly the neo-con owned mainstream news media is spinning the story into one of Russian aggression, making the Russians out to be the bad guys and ignoring the murder of thousands of civilians by the Georgian/Israeli forces.

Russian's deputy military chief, Col. Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn, has warned that NATO has already exhausted the number of naval forces it can have in the Black Sea under the Montreux Convention (an international treaty dating to 1936 that governs the number, type, and tonnage of warships allowed to pass the Turkish Straits ~ the Bosporus and the Dardanells ~ into the Black Sea) and warned Western nations against sending more ships. The Montreux Convention allows the NATO ships to stay no longer than 21 days and limits the total number to nine warships (the current number).

If the Convention treaty is violated by NATO it will be a technical state of war. Russia has warned Turkey that she will be held responsible if additional warships are allowed into the Black Sea; already Turkey has prevented some US naval ships from entering. The total tonnage limit on naval ships is 45,000 tons. The US sought to send the USNS Comfort and the USNS Mercy, hospital ships whose tonnages both exceeded 69,000 tons each, through the Turkish Straits but Turkey would not allow it. As the hospital ships are not really needed, this was simply an attempt by the Bush Administration to violate the Montreux Convention and to get by with it by insisting that no rational nation could object to hospital ships. General Nogovitsyn has pointed out that US Navy ships in the Black Sea have nuclear armed cruise missiles capable of striking at most of European Russia including St. Petersburg and that these ships are considered "a serious threat to our security".

The Russians suspect that the US Navy is delivering arms to Georgia under the cover of civilian aid. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said, "Normally battleships do not deliver aid and this is battleship diplomacy, this does not make the situation more stable".

Russian Admiral Eduard Balin (former commander of the Russian Black Sea Fleet) was quoted by Russian news media as saying, "Despite the apparent strength of the NATO naval group in the Black Sea....a single salvo from the Moskva missile cruiser and two or thee missile boats would be enough to annihilate the entire group. Within twenty minutes the waters would be clear." The Moskva is the world's only currently serving 'heavy battle cruiser' and the most powerful non-carrier surface ship in the world.

British neo-con leader, Prime Minister Gordon Brown will attend an unprecedented emergency summit of leaders of the EU's 27 member states this coming Monday, in Brussels, to discuss the EU's response to Russia's actions. Sanctions are expected to be on the agenda to punish Russia for its "aggression". Fears are being expressed in Europe that Russia may restrict oil deliveries to Western Europe over the next few days, in response to the threat of EU sanctions and NATO actions in the Black Sea. This would be a dramatic escalation of the Georgian crisis and would play hell with global oil markets.

In a related story, Lebanese television and other sources are reporting that the Israeli government has reached a "strategic decision on Iran". That Israel will strike Iran, eventually (alone if necessary). The Jerusalem Post says that the Israeli government is moving forward with plans for the purchase of special aircraft and working on receiving US government approval to use US controlled Iraqi airspace for an attack on Iran.

It is interesting that more and more publications, from the right, center and left (including pro-neo-con and anti-neo-con), are speaking of World War III. An interesting article by Stratfor (generally pro-Israel and pro-neo-con) and reprinted by finchannel.com (a strongly pro-neo-con publication) speaks of Turkey's Options in the coming Third World War.

What the crazy evil Bush/Cheney Administration has done is to move the world close to World War III by bringing the Russians into the neo-con ever growing nightmare of war; 8/8/08 was the Russian 9/11 brought to you by the same people who gave America its 9/11, Britain its 7/7, etc.

There are various theories as to why the United States (or more specifically why the neo-cons who control the US government) would want to push Russia into a global war; just as there are various theories why tiny Israel would want to involve itself in a battle against a massive nuclear power like Russia, who could turn Iran and Syria into nuclear armed states overnight if it chose to.

Many say that the neo-cons are simply crazy and that their maneuvers have failed. Others would say that the neo-cons are simply pawns in a larger Grand Strategy game that the global banking families have been playing for a couple of centuries and that a Third World War is required to establish the New World Order/global government that they intend to establish and establish soon. If the latter is the case, a little thing like advanced 21st Century warfare will get in the way. There is simply NO WAY that mankind can survive a Third World War, except for Divine intervention. The levels of destructive firepower and technology are simply too great.

The Earl of Stirling

08.30.08 -- Bon Appétit!

Saturday, August 30, 2008
Puzzle by Michael Shteyman, edited by Will Shortz
Six 15-letter entries are the main feature of this Saturday crossword with more than a soupçon of trivia.
FRENCHONIONSOUP (38A. Common restaurant offering that was Julia Child’s last meal), good grief, who keeps track of these things?!; PARKERHOUSEROLL (12D. Bakery item folded in half), maybe to soak up the soup?; GOODCHOLESTEROL (17A. Carrier of fatty acids), from the onions?; IDONFEELLIKEIT (3D. Unenthusiastic response to an offer); and Julia’s dinner guests, CALIFORNIAGIRLS (7D. 1965 hit parodied by the Beatles’ “Back in the U.S.S.R.”), who knew?; along with EBENEZERSCROOGE (59A. Name associated with spirits), now that‘s a clue one can use on any occasion! Maybe he'll bring a goose!
Joining the California girls and Ebenezer Scrooge in this puzzle, people and/or personages include ALDAMATO (16A. Former senator with the memoir “Power Pasta and Politics”); ARTISTES (65A. Cirque du Soleil troupe, e.g.); EEK (21A. Cartoon cat with an exclamation mark in his name); ELGAR (51A. Knighted English composer); an EMEER (11D. Arab commander); EMILES (66A. “Ratatouille” rat and namesakes); ETHEL (6D. One of the Barrymores); HAGMAN (1D. 1970s- ‘80s prime-time soap star); a HURLER (64A. Ace, say); ISAAC (44A. Singer of sewing machine fame); a LECHER (36A. Rake); LENIN (32D. “What Is to Be Done?” writer); NED (4D. Songwriter Washington); an OTO (13D. Plains native); REDD (2004 N.B.A. All-Star Michael); TALOS (25D. Brass guardian of Crete, in myth); but not HAMLET (28D. Dorp), the Dane.
Other mid-sized entries of this soupe du jour are a bit eclectic -- ALEGAR (8D. Sour condiment) and ALLELE (45D. Mutated gene); APOGEE (47D. Peak); ARDENT (15A. Burning); CACHEPOT (7A. Florist’s container); 34A. EASTER Island, discovery of Sunday, April 5, 1722; EROICA (2D. Symphony inspired by Napoleon); HEINE (1A. Bum); INCAPS (40A. With emphasis, as text); INSITU (42A. Undisturbed); LOWERS (48D. Brings down); OROMEO (18D. Start of a cry by Juliet); PAINPILL (63A. Anodyne); and TALKIE (41A. Silent‘s opposite).
The fill is fairly standard with just a few tortured clues. Five-letter entries -- ASCII, CSTAR, LIPID, LOFAT, MORAL, NAFTA, NASAL; PENNI, RERIG, RICHE, STANK, THESE. Four-letter -- ACTS, BLIP, DIEU, DRUM, FTLB, HATE, INCR, RAIL, REPO, YEPS. Three-letter -- BAR, CDS, EPA, KEY, LIL, MIN, ORI, OTO, RIO, ROW, TOL and the always unwelcome ZIT.
-----------------
For today’s cartoon, go to The Crossword Puzzle Illustrated.
Click on image to enlarge.
Puzzle available on the internet at
If you subscribe to home delivery of The New York Times you are eligible to access the daily crossword via The New York Times - Times Reader, without additional charge, as part of your home delivery subscription.



Xword search information -- Across: 19. Part of a deg.; 20. Fix, as sails; 22. Play makers?; 24. Health claim on a food label; 29. Western deal since 1994: Abbr.; 31. Kind of support; 33. Kia model; 43. Teeny “tiny”; 46. Like “m” or “n,” to linguists; 49. It’s barely noticeable; 53. Auctioned property, maybe; 54. Crucial; 56. Oil, e.g.; 58. Brawl. Down: 5. Elevation: Abbr.; 9. Spinning circles?; 10. Not like; 14. “My mama done ___ me”; 27. Word in many French family mottoes; 30. Computer acronym; 35. “___ Dreams,” 1986 #1 hit; 37. Cool red giant; 38. Work unit abbr.; 39. Bitterly complain; 50. Old Finnish coin; 52. Like un millionnaire; 55. Slangy assents; 57. Oil holder; 59. Abbr. in car ads; 60. Setting of many jokes; 61. Accutane target, slangily; 62. “… ___ will die”.