...as if we needed any more.
McCarthy's ghost
Democracy is under threat in the United States; anyone who objects to the conflict in Iraq is not allowed to say so
Gary Younge
Thursday March 27, 2003
The Guardian
It's drive time with WABC's rightwing talkshow host, Curtis Sliwa, and Bill is on the line from the Poconos in Pennsylvania with a tale so funny he can hardly share it for giggling.
He was carrying an American flag and yelling support for the troops in a delayed St Patrick's Day parade over the weekend when he saw one woman carrying a sign saying: "No blood for oil".
"She was wearing black and she was an older lady," says Bill. "And then our sheriff saw her and she didn't have a permit. So they put her in the back of the truck car and hauled her away."
On its own, Bill's story would be aberrant - the tale of an overzealous legal official and an unfortunate woman in smalltown America. Increasingly though it is becoming consistent. The harassment, arrest, detention and frustration of those who are against the war is becoming routine. Relatives of victims who died on September 11, who are opposed to the war, have been prevented from speaking in schools. Last month Stephen Downs was handcuffed and arrested after refusing to take off a Give Peace a Chance T-shirt in a mall in Albany. He was told he would have been found guilty of trespass if the mall had not dropped the case because of the bad publicity.
As Iraqi civilians and American, British and Iraqi soldiers perish in the Gulf, this war is fast claiming another casualty - democracy in the US. This process is not exclusive to America. Civil liberties have suffered in Britain because of the war in Northern Ireland, and are undergoing further erosion because of the conflict.
But it has a particular resonance here because of the McCarthyite era during the 1950s when those suspected of supporting communism were forced to testify before the Senate to recant their views and divulge names of progressives. Comparisons with McCarthyism are valid but must be qualified. These popular and sporadic displays of intolerance may be gathering pace, but no federal edict has been issued to support them and many who support the war are opposed to them.
Bush has not launched a campaign to derail the Dixie Chicks, the all-American girl band whose CDs were crushed by a mob and whose latest release fell from the top of the charts after one of its singers made an anti-war remark in London. Downs says the officer who arrested him spent an hour-and-a-half trying to persuade his superiors that the case was not worth pursuing. Even Curtis Sliwa told Bill he should "ignore the protesters and get out the flags".
While these popular expressions of intolerance appear sporadic, not all are spontaneous. The rally to smash the Dixie Chicks' CDs and much of the impetus for the boycott of their single came from radio stations owned by Clear Channel Communications of Texas, which has close ties with Bush. The company's stations also called for the pro-war rallies that have cropped up in the past week.
And while they have not received the state's imprimatur, Bush's administration has certainly created the climate in which they can thrive.
Under Big Brother monikers like the Patriot Act and Operation Liberty Shield, the state has stepped up the scope of its surveillance and the wiretapping of American citizens and will authorise the indefinite detention of asylum seekers from certain countries. Last year, surveillance requests by the federal government under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - originally intended to hunt down foreign spies - outnumbered all of those under domestic law for the first time in US history.
Under a proposed new bill, entitled the Domestic Security Enhancement act, the government could withhold the identity of anyone detained in connection with a terror investigation and their names would be exempt from the Freedom of Information act, according to the centre for public integrity, a Washington-based advocacy group.
Barry Steinhardt, director of the American civil liberties union programme on technology and liberty, told the New York Times that authorities have been demanding records from internet providers and libraries about what books people are taking out and which websites they're looking at.
The result is a symbiotic relationship between the mob and the legislature, whereby official repression provides the framework for public scapegoating with each gaining momentum from the other.
Most vulnerable are those who are most vulnerable anyway - Arab immigrants and non-white Americans. Men from countries regarded as potential sources of terrorism and who do not have a green card, are now required to be registered, fingerprinted and photographed by the immigration service. Many who have committed no crime but simply have their applications for a work permit pending are routinely arrested. "Basically, what this has become is an immigration sweep," said Juliette Kayam, a terrorism expert at Harvard. "The idea that this has anything to do with security, or is something the government can do to stop terrorism, is absurd," she told the Washington Post.
The growing surveillance compounded by discrimination adversely affects black Americans too. "It places those of us of colour under increased scrutiny and we get caught up in the web of racial profiling," says Jean Bond, of the Radical Black Congress.
The fact that all the incidents mentioned above happened to white, American-born natives is an indication of just how deep the rot has set in. Downs is the chief lawyer in the Commission on Judicial Conduct. Such are the targets of the war on terror.
From the outset Bush has insisted that: "Those who are not for us are against us," and so it follows that anyone opposed to his way of dealing with the terrorist threat becomes the enemy, at home or abroad. Terrorism is the new communism. Even before the first body bags have arrived, the war has already reached the home front.
· Gary Younge appears in J'Accuse Uncle Sam on Channel 4 tomorrow.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Technorati
CNN last night advised that Cheney's ...
CNN last night advised that Cheney's firm Kellogg Brown & Root has been awarded the rights
to reconstruct the oil field infrastructure in Iraq as soon as this conflict is over.
Arrrgh!! A once great nation has become ...
Arrrgh!! A once great nation has become complete shit. This whole thing sucks. I am gonna get drunk.
I'd like to thank Velocity for her ...
I'd like to thank Velocity for her comments - it's very hard to live in the States (with such insular and misleading and misled media) and uncover the sinister truths of this situation. Pro-war rallies!!?? - wow that's pretty sick and a testament to the power of Bush and Bush-controlled media to fill so many minds with such fucking bollocks. Saddam murders people because he is a demented madman, Bush kills out of a calculated effort to establish his country as not just a Superpower but THE power - a dream that was previously held by Bush SNR and Reagan etc. Never has it been more true that "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
The truth is almost too unbearable - I have had to completely stop watching the news and listening to the radio, because it is all lies, all propoganda, one of the biggest red herrings in history. Go to any of the websites on John Pilger (only journalist who seems to know what is going on) and you will discover the deplorable truth about September 11 - the new Pearl Harbour - which was the attack they needed, for the war they wanted. I'm sorry if that pains some people who feel for the innocents lost, I sympathise, but the truth often hurts.
JFK was approached by the staff around him about faking a terrorist attack on America which was going to involve thousands dying, so that America could blame and attack Cuba. JFK refused.......two months later he was dead.
People should be left to make up their own minds for sure.........but just don't let the media make it up for you - all our coverage comes from the BBC and CNN - both from the two main countries attacking Iraq. This disappoints me greatly and henceforth I will be watching no more news broadcasts.
A once great nation has become complete ...
A once great nation has become complete shit-
america was ever only great in theory- realistically it has only ever run on the politics of greed- you should also check out William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Wise words I heard the other day: ...
Wise words I heard the other day: "Cock-up beats conspiracy theory every time"
Of your high horse, please. September ...
Of your high horse, please. September 11 was an attack on civilisation, dumbass- not just the USA. Fundamentalist Islam considers us decadent and unpious, and therefore, scum. America is the greatest bastion of Westen civiliation, and is therefore hated the most. That sick fucks flew planes into buildings and took 3000 with them was due to "American oppression" is a romantic notion.
The USA has a misleading media? Try living in any one of the Arab states.
I'm not pro-War. I don't think people at the pro-war rallies love fighting or killing (I sure don't) They just support the USA's war effort - and there's nothing wrong with that. I've been to a few pro-America gatherings, and I must say that they are a lot more civilised than some of the anti-Ame..whoops, I mean anti-war rallies, of late - with their ranting, name-calling, vandalism and borderline bigotry (here's a nice pic: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/030326/170/3mouc.html&e=...).
I'm not saying the USA is perfect, it's not, and they've made some big mistakes in the past (which nation hasn't?), but at the moment they're the lesser of the two evils. Would you rather Saddam kills another 30,000 of his people a month?
// The USA has a misleading media? // ...
// The USA has a misleading media?
// Try living in any one of the Arab states.
Well, depending on your country and your satellite setup, some arab people enjoy all the western channels (cnn, bbc, sky, cnbc) as well as al jazeera and their own arab owned media. I'd say they've probably got a more rounded view on things than most people in the west, who have no access to the 'other sides' news coverage (particularly now that US DoS attacks on the al jazeera website have made it inaccessible).
[ http://dearraed.blogspot.com ]
First of all, Al-Jezeera is a joke. ...
First of all, Al-Jezeera is a joke. Secondly, I find CNN, BBC and the like to be quite biased against America - when was the last time they aired a story about genocide in Sudan? Thirdly, you'd be lucky to have a satellite link-up, sure, but you wouldn't in, say, Iraq or the Palestinian territories, where all media is state-controlled, and you're treated to news-stories of the like of "Jews are the sons of pigs and dogs" etc.
// First of all, Al-Jezeera is a ...
// First of all, Al-Jezeera is a joke.
How do you know? Seen much of it?
// Secondly, I find CNN, BBC and the like to be quite biased against America
now *that* is the dumbest thing I've heard all day. SoldierBoy, you often make good points, but you can't honestly believe that statement. CNN has been a virtual pentagon mouth-piece since the war started. BBC isn't much better, having to make sure it doesn't upset the folks "back home" with too much "negative" (read honest) coverage.
// Thirdly, you'd be lucky to have a satellite link-up, sure, but you wouldn't in,
// say, Iraq or the Palestinian territories,
yes you would. check out raed's blog -- he's in baghdad and gets BBC. My in-laws just got back from doing relief work in the Gaza strip, and they reckon the palestinians there are amongst the most clued up people around, because they're stuck inside all day watching CNN, BBC and al jazeera via satellite. just because a state's media is government controlled doesn't magically make it impossible for satellite transmissions to stop reaching the ground.
// when was the last time they aired a story about genocide in Sudan?
or Nigeria? or Algeria? or the Congo? What has this got to do with the Iraq confict exactly?
talk about high horses ...
talk about high horses soldierboy.
'America is the greatest bastion of Westen civiliation'
holy shit, talk about romantized views. yeah. it has nothing to do with anything the've done in the middle east. no sir.
As for Al-Jazeera, here's an interesting article, by a respectable American journalist.
[ external link ]
For those that dont read tthe whole ...
For those that dont read tthe whole story..
"To truly understand how wrong it is to attack al-Jazeera, one needs to consider two points
First, that to be anything but a lackey in the Arab media is to invite beatings, torture or death. The Society for the Protection of Journalists’ annual list of reporters killed in the line of duty is littered with the corpses of moderate, tolerant Arab journalists who have stood up to their bullying dictatorships, on the one hand, or their puritanical mullahs, on the other.
Second, the fact that bin Laden’s zealous murderers chose al-Jazeera as a way to get their message out has very little to do with the fact that al-Jazeera is the Middle East’s only free news network. Did the rebel Irish Republican Army send coded messages to the BBC and the Reuters news agency claiming responsibility for its bombings because it thought British journalists would be sympathetic? Did Saddam Hussein choose CNN as a conduit for his own propaganda during the Persian Gulf War because he took a shine to Peter Arnett? Of course not, though some — most memorably former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson, claimed so at the time."
just a couple of links to back up my ...
just a couple of links to back up my view that CNN has a US bias...
CNN v Al Jazeera regarding coverage of the marketplace missile strike
http://www.rense.com/general36/kills.htm
and here's CNN's current take on the tragedy, still denying probably US responsibility
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/27/sprj.irq.marketplace.bombi...
yes I defintely agree that alternative ...
yes I defintely agree that alternative views and all sides of every issue have to be looked at.
That is why to dismiss al-jazeera as simply a joke or state run propaganda is an incorrect and an unfair call. Both the BBC and CNN use footage from al-jazeera because the west does not have an effective news source in the middle east, The US govt uses it to get its messages across just as often as arab govts. For other news sources to start claiming sensationalism, propaganda and bias is the joke. American media is one of the most one-sided sources of information you can get.
And as for western the media's gripes about showing graphic images of the brutalities of war, thats is sure as hell a lot more truthful than images waving and cheering iraqi kids waving american flags and drinking coca cola. War is brutal, and a media's attempts to show it as anything less is misleading.
ah, thanks squared -- I was looking for ...
ah, thanks squared -- I was looking for that msnbc article, but had lost the link.
and CNN's still running the 'not our fault story' despite the military actually having admitted it...
[ external link ]
//First of all, Al-Jezeera is a joke. ...
//First of all, Al-Jezeera is a joke.
They appear to have more integrity than CNN (thanks to Noizy for the link in one of the other forums)
http://www.kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/000332.html#000332
And in our gorgeous post-modern world where objective no longer exists, the best way to get a balanced picture is to sample everything, so I wouldn't be so quick to discount it.
//you'd be lucky to have a satellite link-up, sure, but you wouldn't in, say, Iraq
If you'd followed and read Noizy's link, you'd know that wasn't true.
//I find CNN, BBC and the like to be quite biased against America
They are hardly against America. As various people have kept saying this is not a for-or-against-America thing. And if CNN is 'quite biased' against the war (rather than America), you'd think all the US citizens who support the war would be pissed off with them.
Man. Uber-whiplash. Time to down tools ...
Man. Uber-whiplash.
Time to down tools I think
re: squared. Here's an article about ...
re: squared. Here's an article about the post-9/11 situation by Salman Rushdie.
"The problem with Americans is..." "What America needs to understand..." There has been a lot of sanctimonious moral relativism around lately, usually prefaced by such phrases as these. A country which has just suffered the most devastating terrorist attack in history, a country in a state of deep mourning and horrible grief, is being told, heartlessly, that it is to blame for its own citizens' deaths. ("Did we deserve this, sir?" a bewildered worker at "Ground Zero" asked a visiting British journalist recently. I find the grave courtesy of that "sir" quite astonishing.)
Let's be clear about why this bien-pensant anti-American onslaught is such appalling rubbish. Terrorism is the murder of the innocent; this time, it was mass murder. To excuse such an atrocity by blaming US government policies is to deny the basic idea of all morality: that individuals are responsible for their actions.
Furthermore, terrorism is not the pursuit of legitimate complaints by illegitimate means. The terrorist wraps himself in the world's grievances to cloak his true motives. Whatever the killers were trying to achieve, it seems improbable that building a better world was part of it. The fundamentalist seeks to bring down a great deal more than buildings. Such people are against, to offer just a brief list, freedom of speech, a multi-party political system, universal adult suffrage, accountable government, Jews, homosexuals, women's rights, pluralism, secularism, short skirts, dancing, beardlessness, evolution theory, sex. These are tyrants, not Muslims. (Islam is tough on suicides, who are doomed to repeat their deaths through all eternity. However, there needs to be a thorough examination, by Muslims everywhere,
of why it is that the faith they love breeds so many violent mutant strains. If the west needs to understand its Unabombers and McVeighs, Islam needs to face up to its
Bin Ladens.)
//Let's be clear about why this ...
//Let's be clear about why this bien-pensant anti-American onslaught is such appalling rubbish. Terrorism is the murder of the innocent; this time, it was mass murder.
I don't see how this fits with the conversation at all. Even the US has admitted there is no link between terrorism and Iraq. The best they could come up with was that Saddam Hussein would probably be amenable to helping terrorists.
Could you recap how that fitted???????
Sorry. Now I'm being unclear. I don't ...
Sorry. Now I'm being unclear. I don't understand the link between the conversation we were having about various news media outlets, and your remarks about terrorism. Some outlets might have been considered disrespectful, but I don't believe CNN was among them. I simply can't see the link at all.
Squared was suggest that Al Jazeera wasn't a joke. You were responding saying something that seems completely off-topic.
"a country in a state of deep mourning ...
"a country in a state of deep mourning and horrible grief, is being told, heartlessly, that it is to blame for its own citizens' deaths."
this is the kind of rhetoric flying all over the place rigt now. A person can't just be anti-'this'-war, they are anti-war. You cant just disagree with American foreign policy, you have to be anti-American.
There was overwhelming worldwide sympathy for the US after those brutal attacks. I felt for those people, just the same as i feel for the people living Iraq right now. But did the states take this new found world unity and try to push for peace in the middle east, bridge misunderstandings, seek out the roots of these fears, hatred, and misunderstanding that lead to the tragedy. Did they reflact internally at all, and say maybe we can adjust our policies in this little way, and bring in a new era of undersading? No. They squandered it all, and said lets bomb the shit out of them. Now the process starts all over again.
I'm allowed to mourn for those innocents of 9/11, while disagreeing with their govt. Just like I can say this war is wrong, without supporting Saddam Hussein. There were plenty of other strong arm options left, before inncoent people had to start dying.
Iraq has no link with terrorism. ...
Iraq has no link with terrorism. Consider the following:
- Saddam Hussein finances Palestinian terrorism and sends families of suicide bombers cash prizes of US$40K.
- (sourced from THE AGE) ABOARD THE USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT - A terrorist al-Qaeda camp in northern Iraq was bombed by US warplanes early Wednesday, a lieutenant commander aboard this US aircraft carrier, Mark Brazelton, told reporters. "We left without knowing the target and once we got there talking to the airborne commander (...) they gave us coordinates," Barzelton said, speaking after returning from the bombing mission. Asked what the target of the raid was, he answered: "It was a terrorist al-Qaeda camp." He added that the camp was hit by guided bombs and the raid was carried out by three formations each comprising eight fighter bombers.
// Iraq has no link with ...
// Iraq has no link with terrorism.
Sources so reliable the US government won't acknowledge them.
I see your tactic now. 1. Make an ...
I see your tactic now.
1. Make an unsupported statement (Al Jazeera is a joke)
2. Read supported criticism of your point
3. Change topic
Good skills.
//Sources so reliable the US government ...
//Sources so reliable the US government won't acknowledge them.
Well, I guess they better do some rethinking.
//1. Make an unsupported statement (Al Jazeera is a joke)
Just a candid opinion, jeez. Anyway, here's a good article about the "wonderful" Al Jazeera: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-phares032603.asp
//2. Read supported criticism of your point
I've done that, yes.
//3. Change topic
No, not really, the 9/11 stuff was in response to squared's reply in which he alluded to the event. The Al Jazeera topic had closed and I wanted to comment on what else he said,
//$40K Sorry, that should read 10K - ...
//$40K
Sorry, that should read 10K - too busy thinking about warhammer :).
Cheers for the link on Al Jazeera. I do ...
Cheers for the link on Al Jazeera. I do appreciate an alternative view. I was probably a bit short because of others who have come here who really do have nothing to back them up.
also the gabriel garcia marquez's ...
also the gabriel garcia marquez's letter to bush post 911 is good- & how about ol helen- i feel quite proud of her- &- despite the fact that mike seems a bit self serving- this letter is quite fun
Subject: A Letter from Michael Moore to George W. Bush on the Eve of War
George W. Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, DC
Dear Governor Bush:
So today is what you call "the moment of truth," the day that "France and
the rest of world have to show their cards on the table." I'm glad to hear
that this day has finally arrived. Because, I gotta tell ya, having
survived
440 days of your lying and conniving, I wasn't sure if I could take
much
more. So I'm glad to hear that today is Truth Day, 'cause I got a few
truths
I would like to share with you:
1. There is virtually NO ONE in America (talk radio nutters and Fox
News
aside) who is gung-ho to go to war. Trust me on this one. Walk out of
the
White House and on to any street in America and try to find five
people who
are PASSIONATE about wanting to kill Iraqis. YOU WON'T FIND THEM! Why?
'Cause NO Iraqis have ever come here and killed any of us! No Iraqi
has even
threatened to do that. You see, this is how we average Americans
think: If a
certain so-and-so is not perceived as a threat to our lives, then,
believe
it or not, we don't want to kill him! Funny how that works!
2. The majority of Americans -- the ones who never elected you -- are
not
fooled by your weapons of mass distraction. We know what the real
issues are
that affect our daily lives -- and none of them begin with I or end in
Q.
Here's what threatens us: two and a half million jobs lost since you
took
office, the stock market having become a cruel joke, no one knowing if
their
retirement funds are going to be there, gas now costs two dollars a
gallon
-- the list goes on and on. Bombing Iraq will not make any of this go
away.
Only you need to go away for things to improve.
3. As Bill Maher said last week, how bad do you have to suck to lose a
popularity contest with Saddam Hussein? The whole world is against
you, Mr.
Bush. Count your fellow Americans among them.
4. The Pope has said this war is wrong, that it is a SIN. The Pope!
But even
worse, the Dixie Chicks have now come out against you! How bad does it
have
to get before you realize that you are an army of one on this war? Of
course, this is a war you personally won't have to fight. Just like
when you
went AWOL while the poor were shipped to Vietnam in your place.
5. Of the 535 members of Congress, only ONE (Sen. Johnson of South
Dakota)
has an enlisted son or daughter in the armed forces! If you really
want to
stand up for America, please send your twin daughters over to Kuwait
right
now and let them don their chemical warfare suits. And let's see every
member of Congress with a child of military age also sacrifice their
kids
for this war effort. What's that you say? You don't THINK so? Well,
hey,
guess what -- we don't think so either!
6. Finally, we love France. Yes, they have pulled some royal
screw-ups. Yes,
some of them can be pretty damn annoying. But have you forgotten we
wouldn't
even have this country known as America if it weren't for the French?
That
it was their help in the Revolutionary War that won it for us? That it
was
France who gave us our Statue of Liberty, a Frenchman who built the
Chevrolet, and a pair of French brothers who invented the movies? And
now
they are doing what only a good friend can do -- tell you the truth
about
yourself, straight, no b.s. Quit pissing on the French and thank them
for
getting it right for once. You know, you really should have traveled
more
(like once) before you took over. Your ignorance of the world has not
only
made you look stupid, it has painted you into a corner you can't get
out of.
Well, cheer up -- there IS good news. If you do go through with this
war,
more than likely it will be over soon because I'm guessing there
aren't a
lot of Iraqis willing to lay down their lives to protect Saddam
Hussein.
After you "win" the war, you will enjoy a huge bump in the popularity
polls
as everyone loves a winner -- and who doesn't like to see a good
ass-whoopin' every now and then (especially when it 's some third
world
ass!). And just like with Afghanistan, we'll forget about what happens
to a
country after we bomb it 'cause that is just too complex! So try your
best
to ride this victory all the way to next year's election. Of course,
that's
still a long ways away, so we'll all get to have a good hardy-har-har
while
we watch the economy sink even further down the toilet!
But, hey, who knows -- maybe you'll find Osama a few days before the
election! See, start thinking like THAT! Keep hope alive! Kill Iraqis--
they got our oil!!
Yours,
Michael Moore
www.michaelmoore.com
...
[ external link ]
more on clear channel and music in war ...
more on clear channel and music in war times.
[ external link ]
My sister, who works in radio, is ...
My sister, who works in radio, is desperately trying to get a job at a station not owned by Clear Channel. That's made very difficult, however, by a standard clause CC writes into the contracts of their radio personalities: if a job offer is made by a company in a market where CC has a stake as well, the employee may not accept the offer from the competition.
Which essentially means she has to take a job in a podunk town just to get away from Clear Channel, and she won't get paid enough to support herself; and there's a good chance that no matter where she goes, Clear Channel will buy them up eventually. Going from New York to Kentucky for a temporary respite from evil...
Makes me glad I'm in banking. Wells Fargo is no less large, greedy and evil than Clear Channel, but at least they treat their employees well. They make it worth our while to be on the dark side.
soldierboy- i think you've been double ...
soldierboy- i think you've been double whammied by america- it's now pretty clear that over the last 50 yrs or so american involvement in south america - not to mention other continents- has entailed such shonky scenarios as- us intelligence carrying out a 'guerilla' type attaq & killed its own on samerican soil- a particular rebel group is then blamed- the us then gives itself licence to intervene & use its military might to bring truth freedom & crumbly candy bars to a country held to ransom by heartless monstrous extremists-
it has become apparent over the last 2 yrs that us intelligence (read cunning)- had more than an inkling of what was coming on 911- there are theories that the whole operation was organized by the upper eschelon of us & european cunning- those real & faceless leaders who ignore their own governments foreign policy in order to make their own- personally lucrative- foreign realities
crank & consp theory you cry- ok- ¿but is it really beyond the realms of possibility?- now everytime anyone rings for police- fire- or ambulance in the us chances are they have a vision of a murdering extreme & twisted arab face- the world laughs at how inept the us intelligence obviously is- not being able to prevent 911- but beneath that bumbling exterior someone is laughing
// there are theories that the whole ...
// there are theories that the whole operation was organized by the upper eschelon of us & european cunning
yep. I have read some of those theories.
Did you know GW was reading to a group of primary school children when one of his aides whispered the news of the attack in his ear. Reporters on the scene commented that he simply nodded, and continued to read.
He called press conference some 15 minutes later.
Either this is extreme ineptitude, or he was *really* enjoying the book, or he knew about it all along.