Stupid, stupid conservatives.

I was raised on the supposed stupidity of liberals and the glory of the conservative movement, born in the 70’s and a child of the 80’s. But as I age so does the conviction that, although there might have been some truth to that reality (while Clinton didn’t help, the sex-capades-impeachment was a early warning signal of the neo-con-absurdity to come), it certainly isn’t the case anymore. In fairness to conservatives whom I respect (family members included), this is mostly in regards to the rise and proliferation of the conservative media.

Cases in point:

Fox front man Bill O'Reilly was beside himself over the handshake, indignantly claiming that former President Richard Nixon never met with Chinese leader Mao Zedong. Perhaps O'Reilly would benefit from a refresher in Political History 101, because it's a well-established fact that Nixon met with Mao in 1972, a point Keith Olbermann drove home in naming O'Reilly "Worst Person" on Thursday for his historically challenged comment.

Conservative leader and radio host Rush Limbaugh asserted, "If you look at what we are calling torture, you have to laugh," said that "if somebody can be water-tortured six times a day, then it isn't torture," and claimed that "appeasers" have "water[ed] down" definition of torture like "NOW gang" did with definition of domestic violence.

County Fair, the official Media Matters blog, last week called out the conservative Washington Times for its bizarre, fact-free editorial that claimed President Obama's job approval ratings were "in the basement" and that he was historically unpopular. True Alice-in-Wonderland stuff since recent polling data suggest the exact opposite about the president's popularity. Well, it took a whole week, but the Times finally walked back that nonsense retracting the entire editorial noting, "We hereby retract our April 28 editorial 'Barack's in the basement' because we misapplied several polling comparisons of various presidents after their first 100 days in office." That's being generous when you consider the entire piece was completely made up.

[W]hen Gov. John Baldacci (D) signed a marriage equality law, Maine became the fifth state to allow legal same-sex marriage. On the Christian Broadcasting Network today, Pat Robertson responded by claiming that the “ultimate conclusion” of legalizing same-sex marriage would be the legalization of polygamy, bestiality, child molestation and pedophilia. “You mark my words, this is just the beginning in a long downward slide in relation to all the things that we consider to be abhorrent,” said Robertson.

Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and Rush Limbaugh Show guest host Mark Steyn criticized the president as an elitist because he ordered a burger with "spicy mustard" or "Dijon mustard." Hannity claimed that Obama ordered a "fancy burger" with a "very special condiment," while Steyn asserted Obama is trying "to enlighten us" through his order. Ingraham asked of Obama: "What kind of man orders a cheeseburger without ketchup but Dijon mustard? ... The guy orders a cheeseburger without ketchup? What is that?" In their discussions of Obama's burger order, Hannity, Ingraham, and Steyn all referenced a Grey Poupon commercial featuring actors portraying wealthy British men expressing desire for the mustard.

David Feherty, in an essay for a Dallas magazine wrote, "From my own experience visiting the troops in the Middle East, I can tell you this, though: despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death."

As Olbermann has explained, the point would not be to watch Hannity suffer. Rather, it would be to prove to him — and perhaps his viewers — that waterboarding is in fact “cruel, inhuman” torture — that it is what an adviser on terrorism to the departments of Homeland Security, Special Operations, and Intelligence called “slow-motion suffocation.”

Indeed, the 2005 torture memo written by Steven Bradbury required the CIA to have a tracheotomy kit on hand to revive a detainee who had effectively drowned:

[A] detainee could suffer spasms of the larynx that would prevent him from breathing even when the application of water is stopped and the detainee is returned to an upright position. In the event of such spasms, a qualified physician would immediately intervene to address the problem, and, if necessary, the intervening physician would perform a tracheotomy. …we are informed that the necessary emergency medical equipment is always present - although not visible to the detainee — during any application of the waterboard.

A footnote to the memo warns, “for reasons of physical fatigue or psychological resignation, the subject may simply give up, allowing excessive filling of the airways,” and “aggressive medical intervention” may be required to restore breathing. And yet Hannity continues to insist, “It’s not drowning.”

Indeed, the fact that conservatives and the Task Force in particular feel the need to lie about the history and traditions surrounding the NDP [National Day of Prayer—ew!] suggests that they are less concerned with promoting prayer in America than they are with taking every possible opportunity to “slam Obama” for political gain.

I wish it were true that Obama was in some way—any way—anti-religious, but unfortunately that’s just not the case. In fact, as I suggested about Bobby Jindal’s necessary conversion to an Anglo-religion, so too did Obama need the sanctification and protection of J.C. to win the White House. Half black? Sure. Absentee father? Well, OK. Muslim absentee father? Ummm… Community organizer. What’s that? But (god forbid) had Obama ever waiver in his devotion to some imaginary Father and his ghost-Son—not to be confused with “Ghost-Dad,” the ridiculously horrible Bill Cosby movie—he could have forgotten about the presidency.

Why? Because the equally ridiculously horrible reality in this country, indeed most the world, is that, even as religion slowly ebbs from humanity and even the transgendered get civil rights, atheism remains a pox in our houses.

Gunmen, and Coptics, and Musilms--oh my!

Gunmen killed 44 people at a wedding party in south-east Turkey. Some claimed the assailants were from a militia that had helped Turkish troops fight Kurdish separatists.

Kill Bill re-dux? Uneasily reminiscent of the Quentin Tarantino movie in which an entire wedding party, pastor and his wife included, is gunned down during the rehearsal. The only survivor, ironically, was the intended target, the very pregnant Uma Thurman—so much for virginal white.

She had made the mistake of trying to go straight, leaving behind her assassin’s career, as well as boss and lover, Bill. He caught up with Uma just as she was about to ceremonially cut the last tie. Of course, as one is never completely done with one’s messy past, she reverts (had she really ever changed?) to her former profession, hunting down former colleagues who took part in the slaughter, attempting to Kill her way back to Bill.

Speaking of irony:

Antasari Azhar, the head of Indonesia’s anti-corruption agency, was arrested as a suspect in the murder of a prominent businessman killed in a drive-by shooting in March.

Ironical? Or maybe this was part of his job; like Geitner busting a cap in the CEO of AIG’s ass. (Update: apparently, as he wined on 60 Minutes the other night, said CEO says he’s not to blame. Perhaps not as much as he’s been getting, anyway. Boo-hoo, biotch.

Egypt’s government ordered all the country’s 250,000 pigs slaughtered in response to the outbreak of swine flu, even though the disease has not yet reached Egypt and international health officials say eating properly cooked pork is safe. That upset the country’s 6m-plus Coptic Christians, who own most of the pigs.

So, Egypt, how does it feel to be the only country in the world to react to the possible pandemic with an utterly useless and arcane measure? How could this be, we ask, our collective head shaken in disbelief? Egypt is a relatively, progressive and modern country, for the area anyway, we say.

Well, let’s look at that. It’s a precarious thing to be a purportedly secular government in one of the most militantly Islamic parts of the world. Like Jordan, and a few other secular police-states in the region, Egypt’s modern history has been that of the military/strong-man-rule’s need quell or pacify populist rage in the form of Islamic fundamentalism. To the extent that the government will concede to Islamic leader’s social agenda, such as sharia law, and foreign policy issues, like Israel, the less brute force is needed to retain control of the country. Indeed, the first time an Egyptian made a deal for peace with Israel, he was shot down for his trouble.

Of course, much of this rage is not only utilized but fomented by the government. In what can be an exercise in head-spin, the interests and counter-interests of the regime, as it pertains to the vocal Muslim population, is integral to understanding the politics of not only Egypt and much of the region. 

A perceived threat to Islam, when co-opted by the government, becomes an enemy of the state, and thus an existential threat to the country. By linking the fate of the regime with that of a given religion, repression is accepted by the public as a necessary form of social control. (Excepting for historical revolutionary anomalies, like the reformation or America, this is why religion is necessarily conservative.) This boot on your face (see Orwell) is only there to protect from the other guy down the road (or from another country) who wouldn’t be half as nice about it.

In fairness to the dictators of the Middle East, this relationship is neither endemic to their part of the world, nor is it anything new. To varying degrees, this political use of religion is as old as history itself. It could be argued, as I am inclined to, that religion and politics evolved congruently out of the same desire for power.

Did the witch doctor truly believe the neighboring tribe evil spirits, or did he simply understand the necessary motivation for his warriors to treat their counter-parts inhumanly in what was really a competition for resources? Did the different Popes really think the Crusades a solution for the safe pilgrimage to the Holy Land for Europeans, or were spices, silk and empire on their mind?

We can only imagine what fragmented sentences spun round the heads of the previous administration in this country.

Indeed, the fact that conservatives and the Task Force in particular feel the need to lie about the history and traditions surrounding the NDP suggests that they are less concerned with promoting prayer in America than they are with taking every possible opportunity to “slam Obama” for political gain.

I wish it were true that Obama was in some way—any way—anti-religious, but unfortunately that’s just not the case. In fact, as I suggested about Bobby Jindal’s necessary conversion to an Anglo-religion, so too did Obama need the sanctification and protection of J.C. to win the White House. Half black? Sure. Absentee father? Well, OK. Muslim absentee father? Ummm… Community organizer. What’s that? But (god forbid) had Obama ever waiver in his devotion to some imaginary Father and his ghost-Son—not to be confused with “Ghost-Dad,” the ridiculously horrible Bill Cosby movie—he could have forgotten about the presidency.

Why? Because the equally ridiculously horrible reality in this country, indeed most the world, is that, even as religion slowly ebbs from humanity and even the transgendered get civil rights, atheism remains a pox in our houses. 

The Land of Milk and Money

"A pair of ultra-orthodox Jewish newspapers altered a photograph of the new Israeli Cabinet, removing two female ministers from the shot, the BBC reported. The papers printed the doctored images last week.

In one of the newspapers, female ministers Limor Livnat and Sofa Landver were replaced by two men in the inaugural photo of Israel's new 30-member Cabinet, which is headed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The other publication blacked out the women.

Why? Because many ultra-orthodox Jews view publishing photos of women as a violation of female modesty."

Good to see it noted that crazy-ass-Jews are as crazy as crazy-ass-(insert belief system based on imaginary forces, here).

Iran isn't nearly as bad about this stuff (the repression of women) as many of our "allies," say, like parts of Pakistan, India, Saudi Arabia or some of the smaller Gulf States. No, Israeli women don't have to wear a head-scarf in public by law, like in Iran, but many must have their head's covered according to orthodox Judaism, anyway.

Similarly, restrictions on where and with whom women are allowed exist in both countries. Indeed, because this, and more, is compulsory under law in Iran—not just culturally/traditionally, as in Israel—it’s argued women are more repressed in the Islamic country.

But if the ultimate affect on women is the same, is there a difference? And if so, what?

With Western culture bound by the "rule of law," instinctively, we think that religious tradition made into law is always more of an affront to personal freedom.

Perhaps.

Yet, what is more stultifying to a youngster's identity formation: a law that, while generally followed superficially and publicly by the majority, is derided by them privately as dated at best and oppressive at worst, or a situation where the fear of supernatural retribution is pushed as communal tradition, with no dissenting voice of reason?

Forward looking, it might be that laws can be changed more readily than an ingrained cultural paradigm.

So, maybe, reform could come easily to an ever increasingly globalized Iran. Remember, in the country’s pre-Islamic-revolution history, only about 30 ago, they were as modern as most "western" countries—except, of course, that they had a corrupt military dictator installed by the U.S.

From Wikipedia.com:

"In 1953 the United States played a significant role in orchestrating the overthrow of Iran's popular Prime Minister, Mohammed Massadegh. The Eisenhower Administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons; but the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development. And it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America in their internal affairs."

-U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright, 2000

Ironic how the Taliban, as opposed to the Shah, came to power. Hmm. The first filled the vacuum left after the Cold War ended, by suddenly uninterested "super powers." The other was a direct result of Cold War-era non-detente mishigos.

Perhaps, historically, the U.S. couldn't care less what kind of regime they support/install (or depose, for that matter)--democratic, dictators, religious crazies, secular, oppressors, good or bad--as long as privatization and “free” markets were a result.

One of the CIA's first big successes after its inception, post-WWII, the role it played in Iran also (mentioned above) showed to what degree the government would act as proxy for corporate interests in controlling access to natural resources, which would go on to be duplicated again and again in Latin America for decades. You could argue, what is going on now in the Gulf is, in part, related to this competition for resources (oil).

What I'm getting at is this: exactly where does Israel fall on the spectrum above? Perhaps this revelation about Israel will, at least, allow us to question the unquestionable: is Israel simply a good, non-crazy-religious, non-oppressive democracy?

Not if all residents aren't voting citizens--ala Jim Crow South or, as Jimmy C. likes to say, S. African apartheid. Ha!

Krugman, you rock. (previously: Fuck, Krugman!) or: Teabagging?!? Really?!?

At first, I was upset with Paul.

Lately, he's been all over the circuit shooting down Obama's plan to avoid economic-Armageddon. And just when we were getting used to nothing but sweet harmonies from the Left, now this dissonant note.

Bailing out the banks, the way they've proposed it, won't work.

Top officials in the Obama administration are still in the grip of the "market mystique." They still believe in the magic of the financial marketplace and in the prowess of the wizards who perform that magic.

Crap.

But the wizards were frauds, whether they knew it or not, and their magic turned out to be no more than a collection of cheap stage tricks. Above all, the key promise of securitization — that it would make the financial system more robust by spreading risk more widely — turned out to be a lie. Banks used securitization to increase their risk, not reduce it, and in the process they made the economy more, not less, vulnerable to financial disruption.

Even worse, I think I'm starting to agree with him, and the growing number of critics on the left.

A good deal of the opposition coming from the right can be written off as partisan politics as usual; in addition to the overall sense of philosophical disorientation infecting Republican politicians, these days.

Republicans have become embarrassing to watch. And it doesn’t feel right to make fun of crazy people.

Mr. Limbaugh: the most impressive thing about his role right now is the fealty he is able to demand from the rest of the right. The abject apologies he has extracted from Republican politicians who briefly dared to criticize him have been right out of Stalinist show trials.

(In good humor, Krugman quipped about his new infamy gained from the cover: “Whom the Gods would destroy, they first put on the cover of Business Week.”)

Interestingly, in all shit-talk about a populist uprising, lately, it's the most marginalized and radical of each side of the political spectrum that are bending back on itself, aligning the interests of anti-corporate, pro-environment liberals (socialists) and anti-globalization, small-government libertarians (anarchists).

Check it: Last weekend you had protests all over the country, under the loose organization of A New Forward, from those following the banner of Krugman, and others, like Simon Johnson and Mike Lux. They call for, respectively, and the protesters by proxy, nationalization, decentralization and reorganization of the bad banks. Let's be clear, the BAD banks--not even close to most of the banks in the country. They think the administration is playing game as always with big money, and so, they're anti-Obama.

Then (file under: you just can't make this shit up), the anti-Obama sentiment from the other side, wants government to crawl back under the rock it was under for the last 30 years (regulation-wise) and stay out of this mess all together, especially where it concerns taxes, fair or otherwise.

Unfortunately for them, and the rest of the far-right--and they are really just so far out of touch--they "have been the subject of considerable mockery, and rightly so," Krugman admits. Whatever merits (ahem) their arguments might have are obscured by unknowingly self-mockery, it's almost as if the right is trying to put Jon Stewart and Colbert out of a job (not very good stimulus!), or at least competing for laughs.

Yes, it's taken this long: as an American, I'm finally embarrassed by the right-wing nuts in our country. OK, maybe it's not the first time, but the most recent, to be sure.

How so? Tea-bagging. Yep. I won't be the one to spoil the fun: if you don't know why this is fucking hilarious then you won't find out from me. All I can say is, keep up the good work. Keep those bags wet and deep, young Republicans.



Who me? Sure kid, but you're a bit too young.

(Michelle Malkin.)

Ugh, really? Well, OK, I guess...


That's just a given.


Ah, no way.

"Tar and feather" in reference to our first black president? Get back to tea-bagging, lady.

Love, true love.

You know the story.

Two star-crossed lovers; two angry, dissaproving families; an attempted escape from the couple's destiny, as had been culutrally defined; tragedy: the young lovers wind up dead.

No, although it sounds like the plot from "Romeo & Juliet," this happened, recently, when a young couple ran away from their Afghani village, toward Iran (I know, escape to Iran? Ouch, Afghanistan), in hopes of being together at the disapproval of their families.

So, of course, the Taliban was sent out to get them back. They did. Then they shot them. Publicly. In front of the mosque where they had just been condemned by fatwa.

Here, The Huffington Post, compares various sources for the story from around the world (one of the cool things they, and Slate.com, does well).

Perhaps, if the couple had been armed (above), things would've wound up a bit differently.

Or, maybe, everyone could've settled it with a game of Twister, like this old Afghani couple celebrating the 250th annivesary of terrorism. Seriously.




A very real possibility is that the young girl (14, according to one report) would've been expected to marry a much older man, arranged by the families.




From where I found the photograph above.

"The girl in the photo looks very innocent in this picture, yet highlights the growing problems of exploitation of children in this world and is aptly named the “UNICEF Photo of the Year” 2007.

This photo taken by Stephanie Sinclair shows a wedding couple in Afghanistan, the bride, Ghulam is only 11 years old, and the groom, Mohammed is 40 years old.

Ghulam’s parents said they gave the daughter away because they needed the money. The Groom promised that he will send the girl to school, but many doubt his claim. The women in Ghulam’s village Damarda in Afghanistan’s Ghor province say the men don’t want educated women. So, most likely Ghulam will not be schooled and end up getting children very soon."

Springs Eternal

84% of Iraqis feel safe in their neighborhoods, double from a year ago.

64% of Iraqis believe in democracy for Iraq.

-BBC/ABC poll

Hopeful, no?

But how much Iraq has actually changed for the better, and if the media's perception and propagation of these results has been skewed by the simple fact that some of only positive things to come out of years of coverage. Further, reciprocally, has the high polling numbers been influenced by the whatever media coverage they have encountered there, in Iraq.

(Look, at least Iraq excels in something. Not that we're terribly far behind.)


(Bed-Stuy, Brooklyn)

Often, in NY, people can be irrationally dramatic, even paranoid about certain neighborhoods or parts of the city.

They've lived here for a long time (like myself), or even their whole lives, and still they have prejudiced (based not just race or ethnicity, but, perhaps more importantly, class), specious and simply outdated opinions about the relative safety throughout NYC. Usually, these people are speaking of places they have never been to. Then what informs these beliefs?

Perceptions of a city's criminal topography (where crime affects both criminal and non-criminal victims) can be fomented in myriad ways: personal or second-hand experience, TV, music, and, at least here maybe, the movies (this is NY after all). But in general, it's probably the news that has most affect on how the safety of place is interpreted.

News media have a defined set of aesthetics--crucially, a fixation on all things dramatic and/or criminal--and carry the weight of an authoritative voice; so that, public opinion is formed within, or bounded by, the confines of available media outlets.

This is the standard media studies outlook. If the case, it only remains to draw a line from the nightly local newscast to how a neighborhood is perceived, both within and outside its borders.

I'm all a Flutter:

The new twitter. Because they could.

New favorite guy:

Atul Gawande.

Among other things medical, Dr. Gawande writes about health care reform, the practice of medicine, and, most recently, about the torturous effects of solitary confinement on prisoners, from Iraq and Afghanistan to international black sites, Guantanamo Bay to the American penal system--by far the largest in the world.

Yeah, he's pretty rad. Been reading his articles for a few years now, but this is the first interview of him I've seen (thanks Charlie). Charmingly compassionate, with the intellect to back it up.

These days, for me anyway, the medical profession isn't held in the highest, or at least as high, regard. For just about the past year (Happy Anniversary, brush with death!), I've had more doctors and appointments, more things poked into me, taken out of me, and put back in, than I care to think about.

And though I'm still here, writing, sometimes it seems as though it's despite it all. For instance, the greatest medical breakthrough and insight in my case history has come not from one of the heads of cardiology at a major NY hospital, but from my brother--and he's a lawyer. So maybe you can understand my underwhelming appreciation of the medical community.

No doubt, the meds I'm on are surely helping to keep me ticking. But, if not for the FDA, I could have prescribed them to myself with a few blood tests and WebMD.com.

To be clear, I'm not expecting a doctor to go all Alexander-the-Great on the Gordian Knot that is my own personal, unending, real-life episode of "House." But a few small cuts wouldn't hurt... hell, it might even help, right?

Anyway, thanks bro!

Bad boys, watchcha gonna do?

I can't even watch it (the TV show "Cops"), turns my recently filled stomach. It takes the combined effort of four vehicles and at least twice that many cops to bust a 5 foot-something crackhead for selling the police some rock. This is our tax dollars at work.

Actually, they're local: so if you don't live in whatever state they were filming in, it's not your money. Though, soon enough, it will be.

Unfortunately, one of the big winners of Obama's plan to save the world--besides the bankers and financiers--will undoubtedly be law enforcement. Now, while part of it will go to the more agreeable functions of law enforcement, part (the bigger part) will be squandered on ineffectual and morally corrupt drug laws.

Actually, law enforcement, here the lack of, is almost as much to blame as the Wall St., if not a willing accomplice. Of course, the blame for this lies within the Bush Years, when the amount of FBI agents that dealt with the financial system was cut to a 1/5 of it's size, according to Glenn Greenwald. Oh, that, and the more than implicit understanding that the people in charge didn't even believe in the enforcement of regulation in the first place.

Speaking of the lack of regulation, Greenwald seems to me the one of the most outspoken (more than Krugman even) critics of the Obama administration. And you know what, I'm starting to agree with them.

It's beginning to feel like a bait&switch. People voted for change, yet it seems like every position, at least those having to deal with the economy, are the same old guys, with the same old ideological lineage. Geitner and Summers to Greenspan and Bernake, and Rubin and on back to Milton Friedman.

(laugh it up, smart guys)

But you don't have to take my word for it! (Line from an old TV show, "You Can't Do That On Television," sorry.)

Check out Greenwald's blog on the link above. He covers all of this, plus he just released a paper on drug decriminalization for the Cato Institute.

It always starts with the dorks

(thanks to The Economist)

Dynamite, chemical weapons, the a-bomb, and then nuclear weapons. Eventually, in the future, of course, there will be the Terminator.

But for now, it's the computer-science geeks that applied math models and game theory, to peddle purposely complex, over-valued bonds made up of crappy mortgages. Thanks, smart guys.

Taking it to the air-waves, again.

The lines below are from another comment posted to WNYC, this time to The Brian Lehrer Show, my fave. They were asking submissions for an Economic Villains Final Four or sorts. This was my recommendation, that oddly no one else mentioned:

Oh, c'mon. Uncle Milty (Milton Friedman) gave all these people an ethos, ethics (or lack thereof), and an excuse for indulging in their more base instinct.

We all became complicit in valuing the "creation of wealth" and making rock-stars out of bankers and financiers.

Then today, Brian was talking about street art/graffiti of late concerning the financial crisis. (Btw: We need a good name for this thing, financial/economic/banking crisis/mess/meltdown, etc. But, usually, I think, these things get named after the fact. Did they call it the Depression during the Depression? WWI used to be called The War to End All Wars, until it wasn't. That would've been pretty cynical to call it WWI before WWII had happened.)

Though I didn't get on myself, what I told the screener did get passed on to Lehrer to mention: since it hadn't been mentioned yet, Shepard Fairey, now of Obama Hope poster fame, has been doing political, and specifically ills of capitalist/consumerism, street art for years--and better than most. So, you're welcome, Shepard. God knows you need the press.

Also posted this pic. Had posted it here, already, but what the hell: you probably didn't see it the first time, slacker.

Mexican illegal immigrants called spoiled cry-baby's

(Actually, boat refugees from Haiti.)

Earlier this week, reports quoting north African immigrants, braving the Mediterranean in ramshackle boats to get to Europe, calling their illegal counter-parts on the U.S.-Mexico border, "lazy," saying they have it "easy."

One north African man, intercepted with others off the coast of Italy, invited Mexicans sneaking into America to try "crossing a sea, sometime" to reach the relative economic prosperity to the north, "not some pansy-ass river."

"Hell, at some points on their border, there's not even any water at all!" a young woman, with three small children, went on to say.

Reminded that border patrol have, in recent years, been buoyed (no pun intended) by trigger-happy, volunteer-patriots on the American side, another man from north Africa replied, "Sharpshooter, schmart-shooter; I'll take my chances with them over the Old Man and the Sea, any day."

Asked what Old Man he was referring to, the illegal-immigrant broke down, sobbing, "Why Spencer, why?

When it was mentioned that similar boat journeys between the Caribbean and the U.S. have similar hardships, often ending in tragedy as well, the group of north Africans refugees responded with a simultaneous, "Ha!"

One young man, with a slight limp, shouted out, with apparent support from the rest, "The Caribbean? Have you ever been to the Caribbean? It's like swimming in bath water."

"Bring it on," he added, as he returned to the group huddled together for warmth around small campfire.