Starting in December of 1999, Princess Haifa bint-Faisal, the wife of Prince Bandar bin-Sultan, started sending monthly checks between $2,000 and $3,500 to the wife of Osama Basnan, a Saudi student living in San Diego. In turn, Basnan’s wife signed most of those checks over to the wife of Omar al-Bayoumi, a known associate and “advance man” for two of the 9/11 hijackers, Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdar. Newsweek has suggested that as much as $73,000 was passed in this manner from Prince Bandar’s wife to Omar al-Bayoumi. The 9/11 Comission claims these money transfers were unintentional, or irrelevant; that the source of the hijackers’ finances is unknown or unimportant. The truth is this: the 9/11 attacks were state-sponsored, not by our enemies, but by our closest allies.

Prince Bandar bin-Sultan, Saudi Ambassador to the United States (1983-2005)

One law-enforcement source told Newsweek that Osama Basnan, “celebrated the heroes of September 11th” at a party after the attacks and openly talked about “what a wonderful, glorious day it had been.” Less than 8 months after 9/11, Basnan came to Houston at the exact time the Saudi Crown Prince’s entourage was passing through en route to George W. Bush’s ranch and “according to informed sources, met with a high Saudi prince who has responsibilities for intelligence matters and is known to bring suitcases full of cash into the United States.” The payments to Basnan’s wife were all made through Princess Haifa’s account at Washington DC’s Riggs Bank, which the Wall Street Journal has since exposed for both turning a blind eye to Saudi embassy transactions and for its longstanding ties to covert CIA operations. Prince Bandar’s account, in particular, has been at the center of some of the most notorious arms deals of the past 25 years (The Contras received $32 million from Bandar’s account as part of the Iran-Contra affair; British arms contractor BAE systems funneled $2 billion into Bandar’s account for brokering an $80 billion weapons deal between the UK and Saudi Arabia; Bandar’s role in funding the Afghan Mujahdeen is also well documented).

Nawaf Alhamzi and Khalid Almihdar, 9/11 Hijackers

Two months after the checks started coming from Bandar’s wife, Alhazmi and Almihdar (Al-Qaeda veterans, according to George Tenet) arrive in Los Angeles, despite the fact that they have both been watchlisted since 1997. They are picked up at the airport by Omar al-Bayoumi, who takes them out to a restaurant and invites them to join him in San Diego. Bayoumi finds them a place to live at the Parkwoods Apartment complex (home to Mr. and Mrs. Osama Basnan) directly across the street from his own apartment. Bayoumi not only cosigns Alhazmi and Almihdar’s lease, he also pays their first month’s rent and security deposit ($1,500) and throws them a welcoming party to introduce them to the Muslim community. Bayoumi directs an acquaintance, Modhar Abdullah, to serve as their translator, and equip them with driver’s licenses, social security cards, and information on flight schools. Bayoumi would throw a similar party for Hani Hanjour, the 9/11 hijacker alleged to have piloted Flight 77 into the Pentagon.

Omar al-Bayoumi, employee for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Who is Omar al-Bayoumi? According to Newsweek, his acquaintances have always suspected him of being a Saudi spy. Says one witness, “He was always watching [young Saudi college students], always checking up on them, literally following them around and then apparently reporting their activities back to Saudi Arabia.” From 1995 to 2002, he is paid $3,000 a month by the Saudi Civil and Aviation Authority, despite the fact that he’s living in the US and doing no actual work. The New York Times reported, based on leaks from the still-classified section of the 9/11 Congressional Inquiry, that Bayoumi’s salary significantly increases after the arrival of Alhazmi and Almihdar. The FBI testified to the same Congressional Inquiry that “despite being a student, al-Bayoumi had access to seemingly unlimited funding from Saudi Arabia.” Another source told the FBI that Bayoumi had brought $500,000 to San Diego on behalf of some unknown Saudi benefactor, for the building of a new Kurdish mosque. The money was only offered on the condition that Bayoumi could be the building manager.

This means that by the time the two hijackers arrived, Bayoumi was holding two jobs at once, and owed both to his connections in the Saudi government. “One of the FBI’s best sources in San Diego informed the FBI that he thought that al-Bayoumi must be an intelligence offer for Saudi Arabia or another foreign power.” According to a new book by Sen. Bob Graham, one of the co-chairs of the 9/11 Congressional Inquiry, Graham uncovered a classified CIA memo about Almihdar and Alhazmi concluding that there is “incontrovertible evidence that there is support for these terrorists from within the Saudi government.” Graham has since accused the Bush Administration of covering up the Saudi money trail, along with their own incompetence in preventing the attack. The lead 9/11 hijacker, Mohammad Atta, would visit Alhazmi, Almihdar, and Bayoumi in San Diego later that summer.

Mohammad Atta also left a money trail leading to a foreign power. In August 2001, Atta’s Florida bank account received more than $100,000 from some unknown “paymaster” in Dubai. In the days before 9/11, $26,315 was wired from the hijackers’ accounts back to the UAE – presumably money leftover from the plot. On September 11, in the hours before the attacks, the paymaster transferred $40,871 from his UAE bank accounts to his Visa card, and caught a plane flight from Dubai to Pakistan.

Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, 9/11 Paymaster and ISI Asset

By October 2001, the paymaster was identified by CNN, Frontline and the Guardian as Omar Saeed Sheikh, the British national of Pakistani origin who was released from an Indian prison after a plane hijacking in 1999. According to Newsweek, after being escorted back to Pakistan by an ISI colonel, Saeed “lived openly—and opulently—in a wealthy Lahore neighborhood. US sources say he did little to hide his connections to terrorist organizations, and even attended swanky parties attended by senior Pakistani government officials.” The US government inferred that he was a “protected asset” of the ISI, Pakistan’s Intelligence Service. Vanity Fair reported that even his house was given to him by the ISI.

Lt. Gen. Mahmud Ahmed, ISI Director (1999-2001)

The day after CNN confirmed Saeed Sheikh as the paymaster, General Musharraf was compelled to distance himself from the “protected asset.” On October 6, Musharraf fired the man most responsible for the success of his coup, Lt. Gen. Mahmud Ahmed, Director of ISI. Over the next two days some newspapers, mostly in India, but also in Pakistan, stated that Ahmed was fired for financing the 9/11 attacks. A Pakistani newspaper published an article on October 9, 2001, saying “Lt. Gen. Mahmud Ahmed has been replaced after the FBI investigators established credible links between him and Umar Sheikh, one of the three militants released in exchange for passengers of the hijacked Indian Airlines plane in 1999… Informed sources said there were enough indications with the US intelligence agencies that it was at Gen. Mahmood’s instruction that Sheikh had transferred 100,000 US dollars into the account of Mohammed Atta…” The Wall Street Journal picked up the story the next day, in a short piece titled “Our friends the Pakistanis.”

Wall Street Journal article

The Times of India reported that, “Top sources confirmed here on Tuesday, that the general lost his job because of the evidence India produced to show his links to one of the suicide bombers that wrecked the World Trade Centre. The US authorities sought his removal after confirming the fact that $100,000 were wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan by Ahmad Umar [Saeed] Sheikh at the instance of Gen Mahmud. Senior government sources have confirmed that India contributed significantly to establishing the link between the money transfer and the role played by the dismissed ISI chief. While they did not provide details, they said that Indian inputs, including Sheikh’s mobile phone number, helped the FBI in tracing and establishing the link.”

Meanwhile, after receiving an ultimatum from Richard Armitage, Musharraf had joined the War On Terror. But for some reason, finding Saeed Sheikh was not on the agenda, neither for Pakistan or the United States. Vanity Fair and the Pittsburgh Tribune claim that Saeed Sheikh and his Indian gangster friend, Aftab Ansari, participated in three more terrorist attacks on India or India-controlled Kashmir from October, 2001 through January, 2002. Only after being implicated in the kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl (who himself was working on a series connecting the ISI to terrorist groups), was the ISI pressured to hand Saeed over to the police.

Yet, as Newsweek put it, he remained, “confident, even cocky.” He told his interrogators that he was “sure” he wouldn’t be extradited to the US and said he wouldn’t serve more than “three or four years” in a Pakistan prison. In reality, Musharraf had no intention of giving Saeed a light sentence or extraditing him to the United States. The US Ambassador to Pakistan reported that Musharraf privately said, “I’d rather hang him myself” than extradite him. Saeed Sheikh would be tried for the murder of Daniel Pearl starting in April, 2002.

Daniel Pearl, South Asia Bureau Chief for the Wall Street Journal

Right before the Pearl trial, the Pittsburgh Tribune noted that “there are many in Musharraf’s government who believe that Saeed Sheikh’s power comes not from the ISI, but from his connections with our own CIA. The theory is that … he was bought and paid for.” General Musharraf has since claimed, in his widely ridiculed book In the Line of Fire, that Saeed Sheikh was recruited by British Intelligence in the early 90’s to fight for Islamic causes in Bosnia, “but then at some point he probably became a rogue or a double agent.” Two British newspapers reported that in 1999, British intelligence secretly offered Saeed an amnesty and the ability to “live in London a free man” if he would reveal his links to al-Qaeda. Whether or not he did is unknown, however, the fact that he visited his parents in England once in 2000 and again in 2001 - when he was put in Indian prison for the kidnapping of three British citizens - suggests he did receive some kind of deal. By all accounts, Omar Saeed Sheikh was a man of many faces, who may very well have had concurrent working relationships with Al-Qaeda, British, American, and Pakistani Intelligence. In the wake of the American journalist’s beheading in Karachi, it was the latter that concerned Musharraf the most.

On April 5, 2002 in an article titled, “A Certain Outcome for Pearl Trial: Death Sentences Expected, Despite Lack of Evidence,” NBC reported, “Some in Pakistan’s government also are very concerned about what Saeed might say in court. His organization and other militant groups here have ties to Pakistan’s secret intelligence agency [the ISI]. There are concerns he could try to implicate that government agency in the Pearl case, or other questionable dealings that could be at the very least embarrassing, or worse.” Even Donald Rumsfeld admitted that Saeed may have been an “asset” for the ISI (a fact that Colin Powell, Prince Bandar’s neighbor, contradicted one week later). If nothing else, the trial proved Pakistan’s determination to keep Saeed quiet, and no American or British official seemed to object (save MP Michael Meacher, bless his heart).

Omar Saeed Sheikh being escorted to trial.

The trial was decided by a secret “anti-terrorism” court held in a bunker underneath a prison. No reporters were allowed to attend. The venue had to change three times because of bomb threats and security concerns. The trial judge also changed three times. Forensic scientists initially refused to attend the exhumation of the court for fear they would be murdered. Saeed himself threatened the judge: “I will see whether who wants to kill me will kill me first, or get himself killed.” The key witness was a taxi driver, who turned out to be a head constable policeman in disguise. And before Saeed could be interrogated or interviewed by American authorities, he was sentenced to death. Immediately after the trial, the Pakistani government announced new suspects and new evidence that contradicted the verdict. Lt. Gen Mahmud Ahmed is now a successful businessman in Pakistan. Saeed Sheikh is still appealing his death sentence.

The evidence that powerful elements in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia had foreknowledge of the attacks and were even financing the hijackers is further corroborated by the confession of Abu Zubaida, a leading Al-Qaeda member the FBI captured in Pakistan in March of 2002. According to independent anonymous sources in the CIA and the White House (as told to investigative journalists Gerald Posner and James Risen), Abu Zubaida was tricked by his interrogators into thinking he had been turned over to the Saudi government. Considering the Mukhabarat’s reputation, this should have scared Zubaida.

Abu Zubaida, High-Value detainee currently in custody at Guantanamo Bay.

Instead, he expressed great relief and, under the influence of sodium pentathol, told his interrogators to call Prince Ahmed bin Salman (one of the Saudis flown out of the US during the White House authorized airlift – a scheme organized by Prince Bandar). Zubaida provided Prince Salman’s phone number from memory and told his captors that “he would tell them what to do.” Zubaida then proceeded rattling off many other phone numbers to high ranking officials in the Saudi and Pakistani government. He claimed that along with Prince Ahmed bin Salman, three other Saudi Princes (Turki al-Faisal, Fahd bin-Turki, and Sultan bin-Faisal) and a Pakistani Air Chief (Mushaf Ali Mir) all knew about the attacks. When Zubaida found out he had been duped and was not actually in Saudi Arabia, he attempted to strangle himself to death.

Pakistani Air Marshall Mushaf Ali Mir and Prince Ahmed bin Salman, both deceased.

After the CIA leaked this information to Riyadh and Islamabad, three of the four Saudi princes all died in the course of one week. Prince Ahmed bin Salman died of a heart attack at age 43. Prince Sultan bin Faisal died in a car crash on his way to Salman’s funeral. And Prince Fahd bin-Turki died of thirst in the Arabian desert. The Pakistani Air Chief died in a plane crash in clear weather with his entire family and all his closest confidants. The only person to survive Zubaida’s confession was Prince Turki al-Faisal, Saudi Intelligence Minister for more than 20 years, until he became an international diplomat (with international immunity) one week before September 11th. Faisal then served as Ambassador to the UK for almost three years until he replaced Prince Bandar as Ambassador to the United States in 2005. Many were surprised when he resigned suddenly in 2006. According to Seymour Hersch, insiders say Faisal quit after he found out the former Ambassador, Prince Bandar, had been making secret deals with his fellow Iran-Contra alumni - Vice President Dick Cheney, Ambassador to the UN (and, formerly, Iraq and Afghanistan) Zalmay Khalilzad, and Deputy National Security Adviser Elliot Abrams - behind Prince Turki al-Faisal’s back. The meetings resulted in the White House’s new “Redirection” policy to curb Iranian influence in the Middle East by supporting Sunni Jihadist groups in places like Lebanon.

Prince Turki Al-Faisal, Saudi Intelligence Minister (1977-2001), Ambassador to UK (2003-2005), Ambassador to the US (2005-2006)

As 2007 comes to a close, there is no denying that Pakistan and the ruling family of Saudi Arabia have been greatly rewarded by America’s War on Terror. Since 2001, the Pakistani army has collected more than $11 billion from the United States and the House of Saud continues to enjoys a secure position with the American army across the border and a brand new weapons technology package. Now the question remains: Why would Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, two of America’s greatest allies from the late Cold War, get involved in the biggest attack on American soil unless they knew they would be rewarded and not punished? Even being remotely (abstractly, one could say) connected to the 9/11 attacks has left Afghanistan and Iraq in ruins. How could Pakistan and Saudi Arabia be sure they wouldn’t meet the same fate?

Morning all. All is nice and well in South City on this pleasant Friday.

From my window I can see a few low clouds lingering over the northern end of the Santa Cruz mountains and hovering over San Francisco ten miles north, but the rest of the sky is bright blue and distinctly flawless.

I highly recommend everyone to read “Interview with History” by Oriana Fallaci. I’m not particularly well read, but from what I am familiar with, I can think of few writers who can beat the late Italian giornalista in sheer force of personality and intellectual intensity.

The book’s first page, the dedication, reads: To my mother Tosca Fallaci, and to all those who do not like power.

In this book, she tries to understand why certain people become leaders over others, why a select few who do not appear to be any more intelligent or divine become elevated over the rest of us, dictate our lives, restrict our freedoms, and why is it that, in the words of Bertrand Russell, “if they say ‘Die’, we shall die, and if they say ‘Live’, then we shall live.”

In the book, the legendary interviewer grills a bunch of world leaders with “a thousand feelings of rage.” She begins with Henry Kissinger, who is truly a complete cock, and goes through Indira Gandhi, Yassir Arafat, Nguyen Van Thieu, and more. Her really famous interview with Deng Xiaoping, which was one of the most revealing interview ever done by a Westerner about the churning, unstable Chinese party politics right after the Cultural Revolution, unfortunately is not in this book. Neither are some of her other big ones: the classic when she made Ayatollah Khomeini laugh for possibly the only time in his life, one with the last Shah of Iran, the Dalai Lama, etc, but it’s still a great book.

Fallaci was a revolutionary and joined the Nazi resistance as a teenager. She went through Vietnam, was shot three times by Mexican armed forces and left for dead during the 1968 Olympics, and basically led a really cold life. If you’re interested in 1945- history, and world politics, this is a really insightful book. She went off the deep end towards the end of her life by hating all things Muslim, but throughout her life, until her death in 2006 I think, she wrote with the voice of a pissed off and rebellious youth.

Highly recommended.

A few quick music notes.
I would also recommend copping Lloyd’s Streetlove album. The production on it is just perfect. I also got a bootleg version of Tha Carter 3, and it’s really bad, so I’m deeply hoping the commercial version is better. Timbaland’s Shock Value is decent, not mind blowing.
I do, however, highly recommend Rosa Passos and Ron Carter: Entre Amigos.

Alright. First post back…some association football-related business. 

First off, let me be the first on dc.com to welcome Becks to America. A lot of people from guys who last touched a soccer ball in primary school Bantam-league to Continentally-renowned columnists have written him off, saying that his buzz will fade off after a few weeks or even as early as after his first game. Lots of people will turn on the TV and watch his first game with the Galaxy, and when he doesn’t do flying volleys or samba steps while dribbling through entire teams like a drunk Bode Miller effortlessly slaloming, they’ll turn off the TV, and the Becks hype will die 90 minutes after he touches the first competitive ball in the US. 

I can understand people saying this. I think anyone in the world can appreciate the jawdropping athleticism and grace of Ronaldinho dribbling, but its harder to see what the big deal with Beckham is and what he can bring to the table. He doesn’t run that fast, doesn’t really dribble, he doesn’t even argue with refs because he just smiles at them, the wanker. 

What people don’t realize is that if Beckham and Ronaldinho came to the US together right now, Beckham will still be the bigger star. Here’s why: Ronaldinho is ugly (Do you think Potatohead Chauncey Billups could ever be the NBA’s most marketable? No American hates ugly). Beck’s going to be huge and transcend what he does on the field. Brand Beckham is more unstoppable than his free kicks from 25 yards. Even if he didn’t play soccer and just moved to LA to kick it and have pictures of him taken by Steven Klein till he dies, he’s still gonna be invited to every Hef party at the mansion, every MTV awards. Kim and Jay-Z already been dropping his name in songs. He’s gonna be the the guy caught on camera at every Lakers game, and America’s gonna love him simply because he’s fine and can play ball. We embrace plenty of otherwise worthless men who are *only* fine–I mean what has Matthew McConaughey, the worthless cunt, done in the past decade?  Plus, Mr. People’s Sexist Man Alive 2005 can’t bend a cross perfectly between a helpless centerback and an equally befuddled goalkeeper. 

 I’ve proved that he won’t fall off. Now onto the argument that he can’t improve MLS soccer. That’s bullshit. Plenty of dudes will follow Becks’ footsteps. Even legendary coaches like Fabio Capello and Jose Mourinho said they now want to come to improve America’s dearth of tactical nous. People compare this to the death of the NASL after the influx of stars in the 70’s and 80’s after Pele, but the circumstances are completely different. When Pele arrived at the Cosmos, they didn’t even have a stadium. They practiced on some island on the Hudson on some dirt and literally no one knew what soccer was. I’ve watched the ABC broadcasts–I think it was Howard Cosell or Marv Albert who had to explain to the viewers at kickoff that only the goalie can touch the ball with his hands, and that there are no timeouts or set plays. Soccer at that time wasn’t a sustainable business. It is now. 

Beckham probably could’ve played for two more years at the highest level in Spain. He never relied on speed anyway so his advancing age or dwindling pace doesn’t affect him. He’s absolutely going to tear up the MLS. If the Galaxy get a few forwards who can put the ball in the net after running onto his through or long balls, Becks easily will lead the league in assists.

And that, my friends, is because while form is temporary, class is permanent.

As one of my favorite characters in recent movies, Batman Begins’ Henri Ducard (a.k.a. Ra’s Al Ghul) (played by Liam Neeson) preaches to young Bruce Wayne that one of the greatest downfalls in human existence that allows evil to thrive is the indifference of good men. I ask of you , good men of the dC, WHY THE INDIFFERENCE? Why has it been more than a month since the last post on the Dirty Daily? Where are the threads to back up the topics that get brought up on the mailing list? The content has been there in the emails. Yuri. Putin. Weissman’s cats for god’s sake. Is everyone really too busy to put their thoughts into a blog post? 6 weeks ago we were all so excited about the Dirty Daily, and how we were going to open our thoughts to the masses. Where has the vision gone? More importantly, does anyone have the courage to do what is necessary to bring it back?

Alright, maybe we were kidding ourselves thinking that the Cavs had a shot against the Spurs… Did we all let the LeBron-o-rama that built up in the media get the best of us? Yes. Was it wrong for us to let ourselves get sucked in? I still don’t think so. As I stated in “the re-up,” I think it was an opportunity worth getting excited about. Now, I’ll take one sentence to give props to the Spurs before getting back to James; Bruce Bowen’s defense reached heroic levels in the way he was able to keep Lebron out of rhythm and the Cavs lack of an elite perimeter defender themselves (Larry Hughes can fill that void when he’s healthy, but obviously wasn’t healthy for this series) made it impossible for them to contain Tony Parker (Who has a pretty tight rap video on the web with Fabolous, check it out). So what now? Will LeBron respond? I believe he will. Its a predictable answer, and it takes no brass to stay on the LeBron bandwagon and assume that he will be back to the finals because we all WANT to believe that he’s going to be an all-time great when his career is done. However, there are reasons I believe that LeBron is in fact an all-time great and will soon have the hardware to prove it.

First of all, one man can only do so much for one team. LeBron consistently had the attention of the entire Spurs team, and he consistently found his teammates for wide open jump shots that they consistently banged off the iron and missed. Was LeBron’s offense at his best? No, but its important to remember just how good of a defensive team the Spurs are, especially Bruce Bowen personally shadowing LeBron for all 4 games. If the Cavs were going to win, they were going to need Pavlovic, Donyell Marshall, and “Boobie” Gibson to light it up from the 3-point line and they didn’t. The Spurs were just too good to let LeBron beat them by himself, and thats exactly what he had to try to do in this series.

Second, losing in your first appearance in the NBA finals does not mean that you are cursed, or you aren’t capable of performing on the biggest stage, or that you won’t be back. People may think and say, “Well, Jordan, Magic, DUNCAN, and all of the great players in the game won their first finals, why couldn’t LeBron?” Lets look back a few years. 1995 NBA finals, the latest young phenom in the NBA at the time, a man who is devoting his 2007 summer to helping obese kids change their lives, none other than 3-time NBA finals MVP Shaquille O’Neal made his first NBA finals appearance. The outcome? A 4-game sweet at the hands of the more experienced and deeper Houston Rockets. As I already aluded to, this did not keep Shaq from going on to have on of the most celebrated careers in NBA history. He now has 4 NBA titles, 3 finals MVP’s and a place as one of the greatest NBA centers of all time. I won’t be surprised if LeBron follows the same mold. Cavs nation are all believers now that LeBron can get them TO the finals. Its on the organization to give him enough help now to actually win it.

Finally, the man can’t shoot and he STILL was just that close. What do you think LeBron is going to work on every day this off-season (aside from spending his money, fuxing mad females, and trying to catch Peyton Manning in total hours of TV commercial footage)? I don’t think he’ll be in the gym trying to get bigger and stronger. After all, we all saw how he used those attributes to beat the Pistons. That part of his game is fine. I’ll tender a rough estimate that LeBron will shoot 2000 jump shots every day this off-season so that next year, people won’t be able to crowd the lane on him, because he will make it rain all over them. Michael Jordan had a signature fade-away jumper. We saw flashes of it from him against the Pistons, and I won’t be surprised if some day LeBron is known for his patented step-back J. So its all over, basketball is done for til Halloween time, so I’m left with one question, ARE U READY FOR SOME FOOTBALL?!?!?!?!

in order to get over to choad’s to smash bros, i give you the re-up, 2 hours ahead of schedule:

Are we setting ourselves up for a let-down? Simply put, yes. How can you argue otherwise? With the unbelievable amount of hype swirling around Lebron James right now, a failure to perform in the NBA finals couldn’t be classified otherwise. However, I don’t think setting ourselves up for let-down is necessarily a bad thing. Instead of wondering what will happen if they lose, lets look ahead to what it will be like if Lebron goes on to lead the Cavs to victory, with spectacular performances along the way. IF Lebron can pull off what would absolutely be a HUGE upset of the Spurs, the buzz surrounding him will be 100X the incredible levels it is right now. 25 years from now, this seasons NBA finals might be most comparable to the Ali vs Liston boxing match of 1964, when The Greatest won his title for the first time. I can only read about the buzz back then, but as far as I’m concerned, risking a big let-down if Lebron loses is well worth the chance to experience a buzz like that first hand.

Could Lebron POSSIBLY be THAT good? Again, YES. If you watched the Eastern Conference Finals, you most likely agree. If you didn’t, start watching now for the ESPNclassic replays, it’ll be worth it. In six games of the Eastern Conference Finals, Lebron James averaged (per game): 25.7 points, 8.5 assists, 9.2 rebounds, and 2.7 steals. If the numbers alone don’t mean much to you, the story behind them will. Games 1 and 2 were in Detroit, where the Pistons were one of the toughest teams to beat all season. The Cavaliers lost both games, both by the score of 76-79. Lebron James came under massive criticism after game 1 for passing the ball in the closing seconds to a WIDE OPEN teammate for a three point shot. Every analyst on the planet came down on Lebron for not taking the last shot himself (Was Jordan wrong for passing the ball to Steve Kerr to let him finish off the Jazz in the Finals in 1997?). In game 2, Lebron was presented with the exact same situation, where he took this shot himself and missed, sending the Cavs to a 0-2 series defecit that no one thought they could overcome. Games 3 and 4 were victories for the Cavs back in Cleveland, where Lebron played stellar basketball to get the Cavs to a 2-2 series tie. The real definining moment of Lebron James’ young career came in game 5 in Detroit. Lebron’s final stats for that game: 48 points, 9 rebounds, 7 assists. But they do not tell nearly the whole story. From the midway point of the fourth quarter through the end of the game (after two overtimes), Lebron scored 29 of his team’s final 30 points. 29 of 30 and the final 25 points for one team were scored by one man. Unbelievable barely tells the tale. The Pistons had adopted an anti-Lebron defense, consisting of packing everyone into the lane and having all 5 Detroit players stare at Lebron as he worked at the top of the key. Their goal was to prevent Lebron from penetrating into the lane and finishing at the rim which he does like no one else. What they accomplished was to ratchet up the degree of difficulty ratings on Lebron’s highlight film. Lebron beat Detroits anti-Lebron defense in every way they thought he couldn’t. When he wasn’t making it rain all over Michigan with step-back and pull-up jumpers that touched nothing but nylon, he was driving right down the land through all 5 defenders en route to absolutely re-d0nck’Z-ulous dunks. It was the most amazing performance I’ve ever seen in a basketball game, INCLUDING all of the games I’ve seen on ESPNclassic. You may say, how can one game define a man so? Watch it. You’ve never seen one man dominate an entire team that was that focused on stopping him like he did before. Not the way he did it. As icing on the cake, Lebron proved in game 6 of the series that he is about the team-first before himself. Following his coming-out party in game 5, everyone expected to see Lebron take over from the opening tip of game 6 en route to another historical performance. What people got was Lebron routinely passing off to his teammates who stepped up to make big shots all game long and send Detroit home, not for a game 7, but to get their golf games in line for the rest of the summer. Is Lebron the best? Only time will tell, but I say that what he did in game 5 was way beyond even his astronomical expectations, so those expectations for him to be one of the all-time greats seem pretty reasonable to me.

What if the Cavs lose? If the Cavs lose, Mrs. Gloria James, whose name resides on the monstrous biceps of her son Lebron, will probably shed some tears. She probably won’t be the only one. The city of Cleveland, toyed with but then disappointed by its sports teams for decades, will probably have more waterworks than the space between Marvin Gardens and Ventnor Ave. on a Monopoly board. What WON’T happen if the Cavs lose the 2007 NBA finals is Lebron James bowing out of the NBA finals for good. Believe me, he’ll be back. The man is just now getting to the point where he’s older than the rookies in the league. Injuries aside, he will be in the NBA for at least another 10-12 years, and he’s on a youthful team that will only get better, just like him. In fact, if Lebron and the Cavs do indeed lose the NBA finals, its my guess that Lebron will respond the same way he responded from losing games 1 and 2 against Detroit. He’ll come back to answer all critics and exceed all expectations. If the Cavs lose, look for Lebron to sweep the regular season MVP and NBA finals MVP next year en route to his first title.

Does Lebron really deserve the comparissons, so much attention and so much praise before winning a single NBA title? When thinking about history, people (including me) compare Lebron James to Michael Jordan because Jordan was the best without question, and people think Lebron might be the best when he is all done. When people break down Lebron’s actual basketball skills, you might say that he’s actually closer to NBA legend Magic Johnson because of his unique combination of size and speed with an understanding of the game that allows him to create scoring opportunities for his teammates whenever he doesn’t feel like scoring himself. The question remains, has Lebron earned the right to be named with MJ and Magic before he ever wins an NBA title? Does he deserve the accolades that are being thrown at him like D’s on a caddy? I say yes, yet again. Lebron has been playing in the national spotlight since he was 17. His regular season high school basketball games were on national TV and probably more watched than NBA games at the time. He’s turned around the Cleveland Cavaliers, who before him, were seen on TV most commonly because one of MJ’s most heroic shots was rained all over their face nearly 2 decades ago. Lebron James’ statistics are mind-boggling in his first 4 seasons. In 316 career games, Lebron has averaged more than 25 points, more than 6 rebounds, and more than 6 assists per game. Based solely on those numbers, he belongs in a class with the all-time NBA greats. Statistics alone earn him the right to be hyped, the right to be compared to anyone. Take into consideration the pressure that has been put on Lebron of being tabbed as an NBA great from the age of 15, being in the national spotlight since he was 17, having an entire team and an entire city rely on him every night to win for them, AND to stay out of trouble despite the copious amounts of cash he has to drop wherever he feels like it. Put the numbers together with the circumstances of his young career, the undeniable charisma that he carries with him, and the unforgettable performances we are seeing on the court during these playoffs, and you would be insane NOT to hype the man; NOT to look at how he stacks up with the best of all time. Whether you’re a fan of basketball or not, you would be wise to do yourself a favor and if you can’t watch, at least get on the web and read about Lebron in the NBA finals this year. Whether or not he has his chair (an NBA title), Lebron James truly is the new King of the NBA castle.

We’re all old enough to remember the time when there was only one important name in basketball, and it had an “air” in the middle. But lets be honest, while we may have watched some Bulls games with our families, we were too young to truly appriciate the rise of the greatest basketball player the world has seen. Watching every game from all 6 of the Bulls’ runs to NBA championships on ESPNclassic (which I pretty much have) pales in comparisson to watching the games on TV, discussing them with friends before, during, and after, and overhearing people talk about it on the street everyday. It is for that reason that I strongly encourage EVERYONE WHO CAN to watch the NBA finals this weekend and next week.For those who don’t know, this year’s NBA finals are between the San Antonio Spurs and the Cleveland Cavaliers and game 1 is on Thursday, June 7th. A little background on the teams, before I start on the man of the hour; The San Antonio Spurs are a heavy favorite in this series largely due to their experience and depth. They are led by 3-time NBA Finals MVP Tim Duncan, who can dominate a game offensively and also provides a strong shot-blocking presence on the defensive end. The Spurs are known for their lock-down defense that they play on every single posession for the other team (an increasingly rare quality of NBA teams today) and a team-oriented offense that can come at you from anywhere on the court. San Antonio won the 1999, 2001, and 2005 NBA championships all under Duncan’s leadership and playing the same, what some critique as boring, undeniably winning style of basketball.

Meeting the mighty Spurs in the 2007 Finals are the Cleveland Cavaliers. The Cavaliers are a young team built around a couple of key veterans and their one superstar (if that even describes him). They are like the Spurs in that they pride themselves on defense first. They are led by Lebron James, a basketball phenom since the age of 12, and the current man who many consider to be Air Jordan’s heir apparent. I say “the current man” because there have been many before him to be cast as the next Jordan by fans and analysts. Grant Hill, Jerry STACKhouse, Vince Carter, and Kobe Bryant have all been the man who, at one point or another, was a consensus as the most likely to match Jordan’s amazing career. So far none of them have matched what His Airness was able to accomplish (Kobe has come the closest, but his 3 NBA titles were all in the shadow of Shaquille O’Neal and his team has had little success with him as the focal point).

So here we are again, another candidate to be the new “greatest basketball player to ever live” on the court, and excitement about the NBA in the streets once more. I ask, are we setting ourselves up for a let-down? Could Lebron POSSIBLY be THAT good? And what if the Cavs lose? Does Lebron really deserve the comparissons, so much attention and so much praise before winning a single NBA title? The answers are, in order: yes, yes, Mrs. James will cry, and yes. For elaboration about these questions and my answers to them, please visit imma kiiiiiiiiiiing (the re-up), coming Wednesday.

A few have told me I should post my thank you letter to Exxon-Mobil, so here it is. First a little background: about a year and a half ago, I applied to some Hispanic Scholarship Fund engineering scholarship, with little hope, in my mind, of actually receiving it. I was in Brazil a few months later when my mom told me I had received a letter back home from HSF. They wanted to congratulate me, as they were awarding me the engineering scholarship I had applied to, and by the way, Exxon-Mobil funded the scholarship, so I had better write them a thank you letter. I did, and they were so impressed they decided to renew my scholarship for one more year, and they really want me to drop Volume 2 of my infamous thank you letter. Also, I gotta give props to my man Checkmate, for polishing my rough note of gratitude into a dC blog worthy thank you letter. Now without further ado, the letter:

Dear Exxon-Mobil,

I would like to express my sincere gratitude for your generous support of the HSF/Exxonmobil Foundation scholarship, which I humbly and most gratefully received this year. It fills me with joy to see Exxon doing it’s part to support the higher education of young Latinos throughout the United States, empowering us to one day make our own personal contributions to society. If only the mainstream media would focus its attention to this kind of philanthropy! Instead, unbalanced journalists have subjected your firm’s record profits (a natural product of efficient management and operation) under the glaring scope of its harsh, partial scrutiny. Leave it to the liberal media to attack good old fashioned American entrepreneurship, as if there is a moral obstacle standing between conscientious firms and Exxon-level profits. As a profit-driven firm (which firm isn’t?), Exxon has simply succeeded unequivocally. Politicians are trying to tar and feather Exxon with threats of investigations and the consequences of alleged price gouging. The notion of Exxon-Mobil being afraid of tar is laughable; you should be the ones selling it to them! And as for feathers, just take one look at those marine birds in Alaska—Exxon-Mobil is clearly not afraid to get a little plumage ruffled!

Some opportunistic environmentalists are trying to create problems out of thin air by claiming that Exxon-Mobil’s policies are exacerbating the already serious problem of global warming. They use such evidence as the recent study by Science Magazine that analyzed 928 peer-reviewed papers published between 1993 and 2003 on global warming, and concluded that 100% of them were in agreement that the Earth’s temperature is rising due to human activity.

Again, this is a clear demonstration of the huge gap that exists between the real world and the esoteric research, baseless theorizing, and untenable moralism that takes place in isolated ivory towers. Luckily, we have men in office such as Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla) who still have the guts to stand up against elitist intelligentsia and tell us the truth that “global warming is the biggest hoax perpetuated on the American people.” He would know. Never mind that his campaign is the second biggest recipient of donations from the oil and gas industry (only second to that of the honorable senator from Texas, John Cornyn), Inhofe is on the Environmental and Public Works Committee—he must be well informed to do his job.

Once again I would like to express my thanks for the $2500 scholarship. I genuinely hope its funding did not negatively affect Lee Raymond’s $190,915-a-day salary last year, or from his subsequent $400 million retirement package. I suppose making record profits allows for fiscal flexibility—your success has made Mr. Raymond and I both better off! I’ll use this money to help finish my engineering degree, and then, if the whole Iran problem has been “taken care of” by then, I could perhaps offer my technical knowledge to help build a pipeline from Tehran straight to Houston. Hopefully then, I won’t have to fill up my SUV at $3 a gallon.

Sincerely yours,

I hope that you all excuse me for starting another post as a reply to the previous one; however, gs´ post set me on to a lot of thinking, considering that I am currently living in an area of the world (Central America) that´s deeply affected by international labor and trade issues, and that I´m reading two books right now* that address these issues in completely different ways.

What gs´ post really got me thinking about is the need for anybody interested in social change to attempt to understand the world, and especially problems and movements that are seen as single issues, as whole, interconnected, and possessing relevant histories.

I think it is especially necessary to contextualize the points that gs made about the potential effects of opposing sweatshop labor. While it is true that when viewed as a particular instance, the arrival of sweatshop factories in impoverished regions often brings jobs that improve the standard of living for many of the workers, I would say that seeing this as positive is somewhat short-sighted. Leaving alone any potential arguments about trickle-down economics, which in my (admittedly limited) understanding of economics has been mostly discredited as any kind of main route to aid poverty, we should probably look at the historical background against which most sweatshop factories hire their impoverished workforces.

Let´s take, for example, Indonesia. This is a country with a history of intense colonial subjugation on the part of the Dutch, with a postcolonial history similar to many others: A national independence movement that eventually turned into right-wing dictatorship, followed by a slow movement for democracy after years of oppression. On top of the poverty caused by the colonial power and the dictatorship left in its vacuum, Indonesia was more or less forced to accept unfavorable economic policies in exchange for loans from the IMF**. So if we look at this hypothetical factory as moving into Indonesia after a massive economic crash mostly caused by the wayward policies of the IMF (as occurred in the late 90´s), which is arguably heavily influenced by the interests of North American corporations, it seems a little different.

Which is not to say that it necessarily changes the simple fact that divestment from sweatshops might cut off income from people who severely need it. But it does mean a few things. The first is that that divestment will hopefully be accompanied by investment into unionized, sustainable purchasing from factories in area where that income is also badly needed (because, let´s be honest, it´s not like Stanford kids are going to ever stop buying hoodies from the bookstore). It also should be a cause for suspicion when unequitable labor situations are hailed as necessary development just because the workers were previously living under worse conditions. To me, many of the anecdotal arguments concerning sweatshop workers who support the existence of foreign factories in their towns aren´t too far a cry from antebellum myths of slaves who just love to work.*** The choice between death from starvation and a life of near-starvation isn´t much of a choice at all. We should stop to ask what caused those conditions, and what role our own government and corporations, and the governments and corporations directly benefiting from this ¨development¨, have had in causing those conditions. And finally, we should ask how we benefit from this, and have been complicit partners in both the ¨pre-development¨poverty and the working poverty of the sweatshops.

Which brings me to my next main point, which somewhat ties into the arguments gs was making about the motivations and tactics of the sweatshop movement at his university. As admirable as it may be to change your own consumption habits to support more equitable practices, you also need to acknowledge the damage even that choice makes, as well as the fact that even the buying patterns of large universities may not necessarily effect lasting change in the world. The responsibility of those who are seriously concerned about fair labor practices is to examine the wider system of oppression that allows sweatshop labor to persist, and ask how they can change that, or more important, act to support those who are suffering from and struggling against it. Although I agree with ablackone’s comment that we need to eliminate hypocrisy in our own lives, I don´t think that should limit our ability to critique and work against the larger forces of hypocrisy in this world. Because as much as you may try to live as a saint, every North American is the beneficiary of the toil of many who support our way of life. One sweatshirt that costs five dollars less because of sweatshop labor may not make a big difference in your standard of living, but every sweatshirt, every sock, every agricultural product or toy or little crap piece of plastic does. And to start thinking about systematic change means you need to start thinking about whether some stranger getting paid more is worth a significant change in how you live.

Which is why I think so many of gs’ points about the people behind the university sweatshop movement are so valid. Obviously, I don´t know the two people he specifically mentioned. But I found his indictment of self-glorifying activists who are involved in single-issue politics to ring true. It´s depressing when those who are ostensibly committed to social change can´t even make the connection between the economic oppression in one part of the world and military oppression in others. However, I don´t think the blatant hypocrisy of some activists should be a discouragement from being involved in political work, I think it should be a challenge to people who can work in a better way (and who can consistently question their own hypocrisy and privilege while doing it). I don´t know if it´s necessarily better to be aware of injustice and not work against it than to be working against injustice and also contributing to it; and whether you want to identify as an activist or not, I think that the simple awareness of these issues brings with it a responsibility to try to do something about it.

*Globalization and It´s Discontents by Joseph E. Stiglitz, and Upside Down by Eduardo Galleano

**Stiglitz describes in his book a photo taken at an opportune moment in this process: “The IMF´s managing director… is standing with a stern face and crossed arms over the seated and humiliated president of Indonesia. The hapless president was being forced, in effect, to turn over the economic sovereignty of his country to the IMF in return for the aid his country needed. In the end, ironically, much of the money went not to help Indonesia but to bail out the ¨colonial power´s¨private sector creditors.” (p. 41)

***It´s also important to recognize that for every community that decides it needs to work in foreign factories, there´s one that resists it. Last Saturday I was working with a small reforestation project in the mountains outside of Quetzeltenango when somebody asked the man leading the project why there was a ditch dug around the side of the mountain. He explained that in the 80´s the military government wanted to move a factory owned by an American corporation into the area. The community objected, as they didn´t want to work in the factory and were worried that the factory would draw too much from the town´s water sources and pollute the area. The ditch we were looking at was dug to be able to place artillery around the town- the community was given the choice of accepting the factory or being shelled to the ground by their own country´s army. The choice was averted after the town agreed to pay a ¨fine¨which included selling off most of the land owned by the campesinos in the area.

It seems like everyone is joining the sweat-free labor movement at my west coast campus. The momentum has noticeably picked up on the movement, and proper acknowledgements to the people who have made succeeded in bringing their cause to the forefront of people’s attention.

The underlying issue is tricky. I think most economists would probably lean against movements like these, citing issues like the decreased production incentives for companies which have a trickle-down effect on the local economies that are supposedly being raped.

They point to the past: before Phil Knight and Sam Walton came to a tiny village outside Shenzhen or Guadalajara, the people had no jobs and earned nothing. Now they work hard, have to put up with awful–borderline inhumane, in some instances–conditions, but they are making money and people are willing to wait in line in droves for these jobs. It’s simple supply and demand. Economists see people weighing factors and making decisions based on utility, and in this case, Cambodian workers feel like there is something to be gained from taking a job in awful conditions, so they decide it’s worth it for the money and they do it.

That argument is somewhat hard to justify when some corporations have significant profit margins. Why can’t they cut some of the profits to pay and treat their people better? American workers enjoy union privileges, standardized work environments, and so forth. Their counterparts in Indonesia are sitting in a tin shack with no lighting. The more the work conditions are described, the more it tugs at the heart. It’s an emotional appeal wrapped with a bow on top, it’s so easy to deliver. Yet the local workers often consider the Western companies are a godsend. Why?

There are people who understand this issue better, and I hope they could contribute their thoughts and inform us of the arguments and counter-arguments.

What about the people behind the movement?

The interesting thing is, last night I received an email from someone I know who is awfully “active”…she likes picking up causes. Maybe it’s because her family is so filthy rich that she feels guilty about it, who knows. The point is, it was a mass email updating students on what’s happening and encouraging them to participate in a sit-in, and the subject line contained “*ARRESTS LIKELY*”.

Hey join us; get arrested for free.99! Subsequent boasts to your friends not included.

A few hours later, as I was toiling away trying to meet deadline on two stories, someone sent another email over a list with the subject line: ELEVEN STUDENTS ARRESTED. They’re having a vigil for the sweatshop laborers and the students who, frankly, got themselves arrested.

Now I understand the feeling of wanting some street cred. 50 got shot 9 times and went platinum. The interlude from Harlem World, when the guy threatens Ma$e: “I aint scared of you, I been to jail and I wanna go back”. I had a dream about being jailed by the Chinese government for unfavorable expose journalism, and being interrogated and forced to swallow my New York Times press pass in a dank police bureau in Guangzhou, Cairo, Tehran, or Pyongyang. I ain’t gonna lie…I really hopes it goes down. Being kicked out of a country is the ultimate badge of honor for a foreign correspondent. “I wish you would,” as Ice liked to say.

But come on, anti-sweat-labor kids, don’t be so obvious! The hunger strike was a good move, it caused the president to cave in when you guys were sent to the hospital. Why not keep pressing on that front? Advertising your campaign by promising the chance to be arrested seems a bit questionable.

The origin of the email was a fellow I interviewed a while ago, one of the artistic types who is extremely long-winded, considers himself a social mover of sorts, and liked me because I cast his anti-war play as an “ambitious undertaking” in a news article I wrote. I was suggesting his work was a bit of all smoke and no substance that was out of his depth; he read it like I was praising him for daring to dream.

The person who forwarded the email, I later found out, had interned for Raytheon and was a Management Science and Engineering major. MS&E is the interdisciplinary brother of Econ here–it’s the major all the money grubbing hyper ambitious future CEOs pre-business kids join. It has “management science” in its name, honestly. This is the Raytheon, the “defense” contractor who got $5 billion along with Halliburton and Bechtel from the Pentagon, with tons of connections to the CIA. Bush Sr. was head of the CIA during the Ford administration, by the way.

So this kid from Raytheon sends out this email, and I know I’m mixing up my causes, but I’m here thinking: you feel that it’s unconscientious to pay workers in China very low but it’s OK to work for a company that makes weapons to blow up Iraqis? I’d be willing to shake hands with anyone from Exxon Mobil below the mid-level management, and I’d be willing to shake hands with anyone from Raytheon bar the execs–I don’t have a problem with people that work there, but as someone who has a choice of where to go as a student from a top college, you can’t choose to work for Raytheon and then pretend to be an activist liberal. I know I’m mixing up my causes but please, come on, think about it.

True, he didn’t organize the rally, he just forwarded it. But it just typifies the kind of bullshit that goes on.