Riverbend remembers

Two years after the US invasion of Iraq, this woman blogger in Baghdad recalls the endless days and nights of shock and awe--and tells us how hard it is to be shocked and awed by the misery of occupation anymore.

Is it just me?

Or are there a few others out there who don't have a clue why the US peddles armaments to other nations, even momentarily "friendly" nations. I mean, whazzup with that?

Talk about your soft targets

These attacks on hospitals have got to stop. The Marines began last autumn's assault on Fallujah by storming the city's main hospital, the justification being that it was a source of figures and photos of dead Iraqis that revealed the extent of our devastation of the city by pre-invasion bombing. Anti-US propoganda, they said. Now we're doing it again, this time in Ramadi.

Happy Easter, everybody. He is risen. But too far, apparently.

The silence is deafening

Iraq Body Count, a website that keeps track of reported civilian deaths, reports that the frequency of attacks and deaths is spiraling upward, and has risen sharply since the "democratic" election in January, 2005. I keep wondering when, if ever, the US citizenry will learn of this. If anybody out there spots a MSM news item to this effect, please advise.

Who are those guys?

I'm acquainted with some of these folks, but not many. I'm talking about the 76% of Americans who, according to a recent Rasmussen poll, actually believe Jesus rose from the dead.

How can so many people believe something for which there's not only no scientific support, but which is actually contraindicated by accepted tenets of physiology? Are many of these believers the same people who believe there were WMD in Iraq? Do they believe because it makes them--makes their existence on the planet--more comfortable than acceptance of the alternative, namely that the story of Jesus is a fable, well-intended and finely based, but, after all, just a tale--a tale that tells us how to live a moral life, but doesn't demand that we do so in order to achieve some eternal reward?

Perhaps so. After all, it wouldn't be the only occasion in which human understanding has been based on what's comfortable, what's comforting. For centuries, Westerners believed the Earth was the center of the universe in spite of solid, contrary observations; or that the Earth was flat, even though sailboats appeared to sink, but then emerge, on the horizon. The idea of a spherical, isolated planet--one object of billions massed and scattered through the universe--wasn't acceptable until supporting proof was undeniable, and until we'd been sufficiently conditioned to accept it, to adopt it within our sense of things, to make it comfortable.

So--what about this idea? Maybe, someday we humans will become evolved enough to quit this bullshit about the existence of a God and/or Allah, with sons and spokemen like Jesus and Mohammed and Krishna and so on. Maybe we have to kill each other, fight and litigate and destroy each other for a few more centuries until we tire of these silly notions and just plain stop and become that which we truly are: Billions of animals trying to find a way to survive in peace on Earth.

Home, sweet home

Here's what the Bushies are up to in my old home town. Remind me never to say "It can't happen here."

It takes a student of Islam

to recognize a Christian radical.

"The cynical use by the US Republican Party of the Terri Schiavo case
repeats, whether deliberately or accidentally, the tactics of Muslim
fundamentalists and theocrats in places like Egypt and Pakistan. These tactics
involve a disturbing tendency to make private, intimate decisions matters of
public interest and then to bring the courts and the legislature to bear on
them. President George W. Bush and Republican congressional leaders like Tom
Delay have taken us one step closer to theocracy on the Muslim Brotherhood
model."

Breaking the silence

I've been so overwhelmed by Bush's recent machinations that I didn't know where to begin to post in reaction. His cabinet appointments--keeping Rummie, elevating Condi, appointing Gonzalez, to name a few--and his other appointments--Bolton, Negraponte, Wolfowitz--are enough to silence anyone. Now his assault on Alaska, his ramroding bills through Congress for war funding and diminishing social programs. It's too much!

But, guess what? It's precisely what he did in his first term. Recall when we couldn't believe his early actions, his appointments and agenda? We thought "he can't mean it," "it can't be happening." But it was, and it is again. Make no mistake, Bush/Cheney are out to transform the United States into a Christian fascist state--and the media is allowing it to happen. Even the Democrats are stifled, their occasional dissent but a whisper in the wind.

I told one of my fellow peace marchers that it's an exciting time, in a way. We are allowed to witness an historical earthquake, the end of a democracy, the finest democracy on Earth. Exciting, but painful indeed.

Whither the dollar?

Today's report, showing a sharp rise last month in the foreign purchase of US debt instruments (treasury bonds, corporate securities) appeared on its face to be good news for the dropping dollars. Indeed, it brought a quick reaction of the Forex market, in which the dollar gained a penny against the euro, which fell from $1.34 to $1.33.

But the underlying data are troubling, because, as has been rumored in recent weeks, it appears that the foreign governments (Japan, China, chiefly) in fact cut back their purchases, whereas foreign-based private hedge funds increased theirs mightily last month. As the Reuters analysis points out, monthly fluctuations in the amount of these private purchases are great, leaving the prospect of an upcoming period, not long from now, when there'll be neither private nor governmental foreign purchase of our equity and our debt, which presently accounts for one fourth of the market for such securitites. Such a vacuum would immediately cause a rise in interest rate of our debt to attract purchasers, and could trigger further inflationary fears. The likely result: The dollar would weaken even more as it cheapens, the dollar debt would become yet less attractive, and the interest rate needed to peddle that debt would rise further, starting a spiral of inflation, increase of interest rates for all kinds of borrowing in the US, and loss of buying power for US consumers, a credit-saddled bunch, who are, after all, the only engine our economy has.

It could get real ugly, real soon.

Scott Ritter for President

This second part of a three-part interview with former UN weapons inspector Ritter, long an opponent to the Iraq invasion, nails the neocons perfectly. They thrive on our fears and whenever we become complacent about their "war on terror" grab their well-placed microphones to frighten us anew. As I've long said, both Osama and Bush gain from our fear, and the US media profits from it. It takes insight to recognize this awful symbiosis and courage to voice it. The question is, what can be done about it?

Rain, rain go away

I don't want to wish ill on anybody, really I don't, but if there's going to be a huge wildfire season this summer, wouldn't it be wonderful if it took place in Montana?

I told you so

For months I (and other bloggers) have been predicting the economic catastrophe that the NYT is now, finally, suggesting.

The story about the capture of Saddam Hussein

in a "spider hole" was fabricated? Hmm. Could it be so? Absolutely, say I. After the Jessica Lynch bullshit and the Army's tale about recent shooting of the Italian agent who freed the woman reporter I don't believe a thing that the military tells us about the goings-on in Iraq. Actually, I haven't believed a military-minded person--ever. To me, men and women in the higher echelons of the military--any nation's military--is inherently untrustworthy on account of having a warped sense of humanity,demonstrated by their voluntary decision to join and direct martial force against fellow human beings. That decision, in my view, disqualifies a person from engaging in human discourse.

"What a revoltin' development this is!"

A signature line from an old radio show, "The Life of Riley," starring William Bendix. (Shows you how old I am!) It's apropos the Bushies' likely reaction to the Iraqi leaders' response to the question whether the US will be allowed to maintain permanent bases in Iraq.

The "f" word

Finally, somebody (somewhat) responsible has uttered it, and backed it up with reasoned analysis. And for a frightening, compelling review of the traits of fascism, and how they translate into the actions of the Bush regime, check out this.

I gotta hand it to Bush and his advisors

They benefit no matter what happens in Iraq. If a pro-US government is formed, the US can keep its bases in Iraq and can suck up its oil, etc. If the present squabbling continues, the US can stay too, since no founded Iraqi administration will be formed to speak with a sufficiently authoritative voice to oust our military. Only if a passionately anti-US government prevails, and it can speak with one anti-US voice, will the US be compelled to leave--and that's not going to happen so long as the anti-US violence continues, which, in turn, is assured by the continued US presence. Like I say: Brilliant.

Greenspan's an idiot, a fascist, or worse.

A national sales tax? Oh, boy. Just what our out-of-whack economy needs, with the poor, who are growing poorer, and who'd be hit disproportionately with such a tax, bearing the burden of equalizing our federal income and outgo.
The man's got no clue about the need for government to be fair-minded and just in its efforts and impacts. He's a money-monger; he's the first one Christ cast from the temple. He does nothing but crunch numbers and mumble conservative platitudes, while Wall Street and Congress bow and scrape. His solution for fixing imbalances is never to tax the wealthy, but rather to do what comes naturally: tread on those who holler faintest.

Don't despair

I've not been posting, I know it. I'm distracted by a book I'm reading at the suggestion of Kyle. Toward the End of Time, by Updike. Magnificent writing, too good to put down. Posts will reappear later today, maybe.

Somebody do something, somebody say something

Now we're gonna lay antipersonnel mines in Iraq, to be triggered by laptop computer. Isn't there something we can do to stop this madness?

Pat Buchanan on Bush's interventionist foreign policy

How can someone who's completely full of shit on most issues be so right on about Bush's international policy of intervention to spread democracy?

What have we become?

Up to 30 billion dollars of US tax money is going to pay for private paramilitary companies in Iraq. Our "all volunteer Army" isn't that at all. It's a half-mercenary army, with the private half paid up to $500 a day for the less dangerous work, while our soldiers receive $1200 a month to fight and die.

Isn't this how the British lost the colonies, by hiring out to the Hessians? Isn't this why Rome fell?

I suppose I should be pleased that we're using mercenaries, but I gotta tell ya, it feels really gross. Slimy. UnAmerican.

"Both sides are sharpening their knives."

The insurgents--Sunnis and others--attack the Shiites and Kurds, and others (the US). The latter attack the insurgents. Now, we learn that since the most recent election, which favored the Shiites, the latter are systematically murdering former Baathists, mostly Sunnis, in revenge for years of oppression.

If that's not a civil war, what is it? Chopped liver?

Without the Internet, where would we be?

A few nights ago, quite late, I read this article on the web, wherein Scott Ritter, former US marine and UN weapons inspector--who's been anti-Iraq-war and right-on in his predictions about its outcome for three straight years--told us he'd learned that the US plans to attack Iranian nuclear plants "in June."

Guess what? This morning, I learn from the MMM (that's mainstream media to the cyberincognenti) that the Bushies are issuing an ultimatum-sounding fiat to Europe: Bring Iran to heel by June, or we act.

Brothers and sisters: Take to the streets. Now!

I hate to say I told you so, but...

the world economy, much too much dependent on the flaccid US economy, is gonna collapse pretty soon, says the Executive Director of the International Monetary Fund. America is drunk with buying foreign goods, not producing anything much and is spending wildly on wars and unproductive defense items.

In four more years this drunk in the White House is going to leave America--no, the entire planet--with a hangover even he can't lie and cheat and slime his way out of.

Ya know, I hope so. I want an end to these evildoers that have seized power in the US, and the only way we'll get rid of them, seems to me, is for them to so screw things up that even their monied supporters bail out.

So--spend on, Bush. March on, Bush. Lie and cheat and steal. Do your worst. I've decided to root for you, all the way into oblivion.

Smoking gun

One doesn't often see a murder on videotape, so when a newsman films a US soldier shooting an already-injured Iraqi at point-blank range--and then joking about it--one would think there might be grounds for a court martial. But no, not in this man's army. There's apparently "insufficient evidence."

Raimondo scores again

with this excellent piece about the NeoCons' march to war against Syria, in particular the baseless drumbeat that Syria was behind the recent bombing of a former Lebanese prime minister.

The most telling part of the essay is his quote from an article by Ron Suskind, recounting his conversation with a Bush admininstration aide on the nature of truth in the American Empire:

The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'

Mourning

No posts today. I'm in mourning. Sandra Dee and Hunter Thompson died. Nobody left to look up to.

The man on the street, a German street, reacts to Bush's imminent visit.

Essentially saying it's a pain in the ass.

Don't hold your breath

waiting for this UN report on the miserable conditions and prospects for Afghanistan to be reported by the mainstream media (hereinafter MSM) in the US.

"I serve in shame"

Check out this post from an army man serving in Iraq. The cartoon at the bottom is telling too.

Talk about a quagmire

In addition to arming Sunnis, in case the Shiite government turns in the wrong direction in Iraq, a I reported a few posts ago, the US, it turns out, is now negotiating with the Sunnis to end their involvement in the insurgency. Doubtless, they're being promised some position in the new "popularly elected" government. To the chagrin, of course, of those in that government.

What hypocrites the members of the administration are. What liars and frauds.

A fine kettle of fish

The Bremer-dictated "transitional law" that allowed him to escape Iraq without a shot was crafted, at the insistence of the Kurds, to allow them an effective veto over the terms of the constitution. This kept the Kurds happy, but even as the veto provision was inserted in the transitional law, the Shiites objected--but were over-ridden by the force of our occupation.

Now, however, the Shiites are contending that the new assembly can change that veto provision, effectively canceling the Kurds' power--which the Kurds covet so that they can exercise control over their northern provinces, including Kirkuk, which contains vast oil deposits. The Shiites contend the transitional law is not binding because it was produced during the occupation by the US. And, of course, the Sunnis take that same position, a position which, in effect, leaves the transitional law in effect only as to the parts that no one objects to.

Let me say this: I wouldn't want to be in that assembly this summer when these matters are decided. For that matter, I wouldn't want to be in the streets of Baghdad or Mosul or elsewhere in Iraq, where they are more likely to be decided.

I can't wait to hear

what Rummie says about the Army's destruction of photos of torture, having assured us, in Senate testimony, that the world would judge us by our transparency in dealing with the allegations of prisoner abuse.

When is it going to dawn on somebody that the Bushies are no different from other regimes that have run the US, or, for that matter, other empires--except that they're better at it. Namely, they lie and they've convinced a majority of us they're saintly. Come to think of it, there was a similar regime in Germany six decades ago.

The past is prologue

Here's a fine piece, showing what British kids are being taught about the VietNam war, comparing the revisionist version of that terrible conflict to what's happening to the truth in Iraq.

Upbeat? I think not

Greenspan's long-awaited testimony before the Senate was ambiguous at best. My take: He sees that the US in the long run can't continue as it is, spending, not taxing, continuing both as a nation and as its citizens to borrow from the future.

He's right, but he's not being heeded, not by consumers, not by our president or congress. At the end of Bush's second term we're going to be in the same situation we were at the end of the last trickle-down president, Reagan, who left us a heritage of massive debt that we still haven't paid. off.

Ya know, sometimes bad is better

With Kerry's outlandish push for more, not fewer, troops in Iraq, and approving, without question, Bush's 80-plus billions as a supplement for the defense department, I'm not sure Bush's election wasn't, in the long run, a good deal for us lefties. After all, what would we do with Kerry in control? Protest against our victor? Sure, he wouldn't be privatizing everything, but he's got an odd set of priorities in international relations, namely, the time-worn ideas that power makes peace.

So much for John Kerry

Now that he's shown himself to be a gutless, principle-less clot. I'm glad we elected Bush. He's easier to hate, and he's their asshole, not ours.

The power of the press

"Stocks Mixed Despite Strong Retail Report," is the headline of an AP story, dated today, at 11:01 a.m., EST. "Retail Sales are Weakest in Five Months," reads the headline of another AP story, same date, 15 minutes earlier, but this report by an economics reporter, referring to the same "retail report," which, in actuality, showed a significant drop in retail activity, but a slightly smaller drop than some economists forecast.

This is how the world works these days: All is illusion, spin, hype. All is lies. Karl Rove knows this and works precisely this way, over-stating projections of budget shortfall and then claiming victory when the budget doesn't do as badly; understating cost of Medicare benefits, then claiming foul when he later releases the higher true cost figures.

We've not only got to take back the White House, we've got to take back the media that got them into power and keeps them there.

The power of the press

"Stocks Mixed Despite Strong Retail Report," is the headline of an AP story, dated today, at 11:01 a.m., EST. "Retail Sales are Weakest in Five Months," reads the headline of another AP story, same date, 15 minutes earlier, but this report by an economics reporter, referring to the same "retail report," which, in actuality, showed a significant drop in retail activity, but a slightly smaller drop than some economists forecast.

This is how the world works these days: All is illusion, spin, hype. All is lies. Karl Rove knows this and works precisely this way, over-stating projections of budget shortfall and then claiming victory when the budget doesn't do as badly; understating cost of Medicare benefits, then claiming foul when he later releases the higher true cost figures.

We've not only got to take back the White House, we've got to take back the media that got them into power and keeps them there.

Tell me it isn't so

That the US is secretly arming Baathists in Iraq, using Pakistani arms to do so, in order to fashion a strong resistance to the possibility that the elected assembly might turn toward a fellow Shi'ite state, Iran, for allegiance.

I don't doubt the report, actually, because it's the kind of thing we regularly do in the world. We are, after all, the chief cause of unrest around the globe, and have been for decades.

War drums

The media are doing Bush's job for him. On the Sunday morning talk shows--I'm making myself watch these clowns--the ongoing discussion is about nukes in Iran and Korea and what the US is going to do about them. I've heard no discussion of initiatives to defuse these situations or to deal with the problems that have caused them to arise. No, the news programs make more money when the production is dramatic, and what's more dramatic than war?

What the hell?

It's less than a month after the inauguration of president who claims he has a mandate to do, essentially, as he pleases, and who, for the next four years (if the last four are any indication), will indeed do just that. And yet according to the just-released poll by AP, fifty-eight percent of Americans believe the country is on the "wrong track" as opposed to thirty-eight who believe it's headed in the right direction.

There's a disconnect here that's more than troubling. It's scary.

What if only one-fifth of this is true?

Even so, this dispatch from Iraq, a report of an Iraqi doctor in Fallujah after the siege, is as ugly as it gets. As feared, too, he equates the actions of Bush and the Army with "Americans," all of us. So much for a trip to Baghdad by any American tourist in our lifetimes.

Compassionate conservatism in action

Bush's reaction to a woman's plight of having to work three jobs to support her "mentally challenged" son: classic.

If I were religious

Especially a Christian, I'd be mighty miffed that my religion had been taken over by a bunch of stupid, warmongering bigots. I mean, I'm pissed off that the Democratic Party has sold out to the middle-roaders and am protesting and organizing against it, as are millions nationwide over the last few years. But from the Christian left, even the Christian middle, not a peep about the theft of their religion by the pro-Bush faction. No organization, no spokespersons, nobody standin up to say, Enough. Jesus was a peacemaker. God is justice and tolerance, not war.

I'd like to hear about this from somebody who's religious, Whazzup with the silence?

A couple of things, both profound

1. The Bushies have denied--and hand-wringing Democrats have been worried about--the prospect of a "civil war" in Iraq. Well, we now have an "elected" government, with its troops (and with the U.S. as its allies), doing daily battle with "insurgents" who are blowing up people, pipelines, buildings. If that's not a civil war, what is?

2. I do a lot of reading about the human psyche and mind and stuff. My conclusion, backed by a bunch of heavy-hitting Ph.D.'s, is that the mind is a super-computer, with electric energy and sophisticated chemical happenings that we don't understand. But, at base, "just" a computer. So, if that's true, isn't it absolutely certain that the reason Bush got elected again is because of the elemental computer maxim that is based on the current state of the media coverage of his administration prior to the election, namely, "Garbage in, garbage out"? I mean, the Democrats and others have done much soul-searching over the question "what happened?" and "where do we go from here?" and I think the answer is simple: We take back the media.

Marquette's Student Republican

recently adopted an "Adopt a Sniper" campaign, supporting our Army sharpshooters in Iraq and Afghanistan. I kid you not.

Official dispatches, too?

You'd think, when the Army releases official notices of wounded or killed soldiers it wouldn't engage in politicking. But no. Notice how, in this dispatch, it mentions that the wounded were riding in an "uparmored Humvee," whereas in this dispatch , reporting a death, it simply notes that the soldier was killed "in his vehicle."

Why I'm anti-Amercian

Don't be alarmed. Even though Gonzales' drones are likely monitoring this blog, I'll surely be acquitted of whatever crime they create to jail me on account of the title to this post (provided, of course, that I get a trial). You see, it's not the founding documents I detest. Not the marvelous geography of our nation, nor its powerful ideals. Not the finer moments of our history. No, it's things like this: a war between beer advertisers vying for position on the Super Bowl telecast; and worse, an hour-long CBS--a major network--broadcast this evening of a "special" in which Super Bowl ads vie for viewer approval with commercials from other nations. I tried to watch it to get the taste, but I had to tune away. Too base, too demeaning. I'd like to know its Nielsen rating, may check it out tomorrow and report back.

We have become a crass commercial culture. We aren't worthy of the power and place we inhabit in the world. A majority of Americans are ugly, mean people, driven to consume. It's not their fault, but it's surely their condition, spawned and fueled by greedy corporate enterprises that have for decades fueled our consumption, profited from it, and have finally created its product. The dull-witted consumer, whose ethic is theirs.

Republican economics

This article cuts through the figures, analyzes the reality of the state of the union's economy.

Watch what we do, not what we say

Remember back when the Abu Ghraib prisoner-abuse scandal surfaced? The Bush administration mantra was that this would provide the world with a window into our process, that we, as a democracy, would deal with the question of our conduct forthrightly and justly. Rummie said this in his Senate testimony repeatedly.

Well, it's almost a year later and what has happened? A few "bad apples" have been tried and convicted of various maldeeds--with coverage of the trials utterly absent from our media--but none of the higher-ups punished, not even chastised. Including, of course, Gonzales, author of the torture memo that probably formed the basis for our barbarous conduct.

And as to the window on our process? Not opening, not even when a federal judge repeatedly orders it.

In a separate case yesterday that could reveal more details about Abu Ghraib and other detention facilities, a federal judge in New York ordered the CIA to comply with the Freedom of Information Act and turn over to watchdog groups records concerning the treatment of prisoners in Iraq. It was the second time in six months that the judge suggested the government was impeding the American Civil Liberties Union's quest to monitor government actions in the war on terrorism.

Huh?

The chief of police in Mosul "was able to negotiate" with the coalition forces the release of 84 persons in coalition custody who were found not to be participants "in the terrorist minority." Whazzupwiththat? Who's on first?

Right on

This essay, as depressing as it is for those of us who want truth and justice to win out, is unfortunately the most accurate assessment of the future of Iraq and its neighbors. Bush/Rove, the author concedes, have successfully manipulated the US media into buying their entire war agenda.

One man, one vote

I demonstrate against the war here in Santa Barbara by marching up and down State Street weekly and otherwise hanging out a protest sign wherever possible. Silly me. In my marches I've encountered opponents, who, like the one who defaced this antiwar poster, has just as many votes as I.

Is it possible democracy is overrated?

The sky is falling

When an analyst from Bloomberg News, hardly a rad, frets about the future of the dollar and its possible decline into valuelessness--with an economic cataclysm to follow--the only answer is, as we learned during the fifties, "Duck and cover!"

Setting the record straight

Look, let's be clear about one thing: The U.S. invasion of Iraq, and subsequent occupation, are an outrage. A violation of international law; an action taken without justification, legal or factual; and done without UN sanction and for discredited, or clandestine, purposes.

The US, to my knowledge, has never declared war on, invaded and occupied another sovereign nation without a direct attack by that nation. The Spanish-American War, as unwarranted and devious as that was, at least didn't result in our invasion of Spain (although we took over many of their colonies, including The Phillipines). The war with Mexico did indeed result in our temporary occupation of two of its major cities, but we withdrew shortly afterward. Neither of these episodes was particularly honorable--certainly not hallmarks of US diplomacy--but they were small potatoes compared to this Iraq madness.

We invaded and occupied Germany and Japan, both of which had attacked us and declared war on us. But Iraq? What the hell did it do to justify our "shock and awe" and our ruination of their cities and citizenry? They had a tyrant as a leader. Big deal. Tyrants abound in the world, and we support most of them. They'd made war on Kuwait, but were beaten back and sanctioned by the community of nations.

So now, having taken over their country, having built barricades and zones of danger, we, through the "leaders" we put in power, "hold elections." The Shiites and the Kurds rejoice, because they get to vote. The Sunnis, however, resist and fight the occupation because they're in the minority and will lose power because of the invasion/occupation/election. I ask you: Wouldn't you do exactly the same thing?

The US was wrong to invade. Morally, legally, factually. The occupation and "election" don't make it right. This awful sequence is a blemish on the history of our nation, and it was the action of two men, Bush and Cheney, who are as tyrannical and maniacal as any leaders on Earth.

Sour grapes--or grapes of wrath?

I'm aware that this sounds like I'm just plain negative about Iraq's election, that because my candidate lost the US election, my antiwar protests have gone unheeded, and my call for Bush's ouster in some lawful way aren't going to happen, I refuse to acknowledge even the titular legitimacy of the polling in Iraq.

Okay, I admit it. My bias is strong to call the election in Iraq a sham, even to deem the courage of the voters who dodged bullets to get to the polls an exercise in infuriated self-interest, not freedom. But hear this: There are elections and there are elections. The Soviet Union had elections for seven decades, Germany had elections three decades, the United States had elections in 2000 and 2004, and each year scores of "democracies" hold elections, including Cuba and Egypt and, for God's sake, Iran, and we--the Bushies--deem them frauds.

Now, I wasn't "on the ground" (Oh, how I hate that phrase!) in Iraq, but here's somebody who was, and his take on this "election" is this: You can't have democracy when foreign troops occupy all roads, all access, to the polling places. What that amounts to is a Vichy government, able to function only at the sufferance of the occupiers.

That may be the Bushies' definition of democracy--it certainly seems to be lately in this country--but it sure as hell ain't mine.

Will there ever be a last straw?

Now it turns out the US has failed to account for $9 billion in Iraq, money that was supposed to go for the reconstruction of the country. If this doesn't cause Congress to demand that Bush's latest request for a "supplemental appropriation" be pared by a like amount, I don't know what.

Iraq's election

Here's a cogent analysis of today's "election" in Iraq by Professor Juan Cole.

I have this additional take. Let's say the US was invaded by forces (imagine a coalition of Mexico, Canada, Germany, France and Brazil, et al) that opposed our administraton (let's say it's Bushies) and was then occupied by those forces which, by force of arms, isolated and eliminated the Bushies and after years of insurgency by Bush's supporters, reduced them to armed militants and then, by the vote of those who weren't killed or ostracized, elected a panel of Gore/Kerry/Kennedy.

I wonder how Republicans would react to that development.

You've gotta--just gotta--watch this!

Puhleeze click here for a quick movie capturing our Orwellian--or should I say, Domino's--future.

I dare anybody

to check these photos of the children of Iraq and still support our invasion of their country.

How the world sees us

This essay is right on on the subject of the fantasy of Bushies (of many Americans, too, alas) that the US is a respected nation with ideas and ideals that are emulated by the world. Not so, citing facts and figures.

One significant omission: I believe that increasingly even the youth of foreign lands are rejecting the compulsive consumerism of America. Maybe not consumerism, but the American style, because of their distaste for the government that fosters it.

This could get ugly

For more than a year, I've been posting on the subject of the prospect that the nations (Japan, China and Europe, chiefly) that have been purchasing and holding assets in dollars, including our federal debt instruments and stocks in American companies, would tire of doing so as the value of the dollar against other currencies declines. The Bush administration has telegraphed that it wants the dollar to decline so that foreign nations will be able to afford our products, thereby causing increasing sales of US goods abroad. This may benefit the corporations that export, but the decline of the dollar has a distinct downside for American consumers, namely, that the cheaper dollar can buy fewer imports (cars, computers, everything, actually), so that price inflation begins to take hold in the US, coupled with interest-rate increases as the US must increase the interest rate on its debt in order to attract buyers on the instruments.

It looks like the dollar is losing out to the euro lately in terms of foreign holdings. Will the nightmare of inflation, increasing interest rates and less purchasing by consumers then follow, causing a catastrophic decline in the condition of the US economy?

If I were a betting man, I'd say, buy euros.

I wish I'd said that

For a quick take on Bush's plans for the world as announced in his inaugural address, check out this article, the opening line of which reads, "After listening to his inaugural speech, anyone who thinks President Bush and his handlers are sane needs to visit a psychiatrist."

Tough duty

That US Army. A bunch of toughies, strong sense of justice and discipline. Why, after court martial conviction for "shooting a female civilian interpreter in the head" one soldier was sentenced to three years, a second soldier to eighteen months, in the stockade. Three whole years, eighteen whole months!

Sign me up!

I don't like the sound of this

but this essay, quoting various highly placed Democrats in favor of a preemptive strike on Iran, makes a strong case that we the people--we the good people--are the only ones who can keep the Bushies from launching yet another war.

Don't read my son's lips

After most inspiring speeches, like Bush's inauguration address was, I'm sure, supposed to be, the president's supporters are supposed to be elucidating and expanding on its meaning, to carry it out into the world. Not with this president, however. His ravings about "spreading freedom" throughout the world have so alarmed other nations that Bush's father has had to insert correcting provisos and explanations, to make sure his son's madness isn't taken seriously.

The Selling of MLKing

This post about the hypocrisy of the Right's recent attempts to appropriate Martin Luther King to their side is right on. I've been noticing it too, and it cannot stand. King, at the end, was a rabid antiwar, anti-Rightist. His last expressions were of utter frustration and rage and the broad range of inequities based on race, poverty, capitalist oppression--much broader than merely segregation and voting rights. The whitewashing of his positions and role in America must be brought to light, so that the religious right can't rewrite history and claim as their own this strong and important man.

How can you not feel sorry for what we've done to law-abiding Iraqis?

Just read this post from Riverbend. We've turned her country into a theater of war. A war between the US and the Middle East.

The rant of a madman?

I didn't--couldn't bring myself to--watch Bush's inaugural speech, but Justin Raimondo did, and if his analysis of Bush's rhetoric is accurate, I'm glad I didn't waste my time tuning in. I need all the time I can get to gather weapons and ammunition.

Four more years

This article about the brand-new "grim assessment" of Iraq's future by a commission of intelligence officers not only contradicts Bush's Pollyanna-ish outlook for that nation after the elections, but contains a hint of what we can expect from the Administration if things continue to go poorly. The Shiites will gain power in the elections, the Sunnis and others will continue to wage violent insurgency, the Shiites will try to placate them by setting a firm schedule for US withdrawal of its forces (the US will be consulted no doubt, and there'll be conditions and caveats galore) and then as the time-limits arrive and we commence withdrawal, leaving a "residual force" or something, Bush will claim victory. He'll have saved face, the NeoCons will have their vested power in Iraq to control the Middle East and protect Israel, and Iraq, though still torn apart by fractious war, will be no threat to anybody except itself.

Okay, so the article doesn't say all of the foregoing, but I do.

If you ever doubted that Bush was the creature of American corporations

check out this list of donors to his inaugural celebrations.

I'm becoming anti-American

And why not? We're barbarians.

Altruism or some other -ism?

I don't know, but to me any religion, Christian or Muslim or any other, that uses the entree that is provided by the needy's need arising from the tsunami for prosetylizing is worthy of disgust and outrage and more.

This is really unpleasant for me to realize

but there are few things going on the United States today that I approve of. On the eve of MLK's day celebration, I don't think we've come very far from the early sixties, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Have blacks and browns and other nonwhites gained in income, in status, in fundamental equity? A look at the stats says no. The persons of color are woefully over-represented on death row, in prisons, in poverty, in lack of insurance and income. They're still doing our most onerous, least rewarding (income-wise and otherwise) jobs. They're still not able to participate meaningfully in many social events--not because of laws, but worse, by ongoing social custom, something harder to amend.

Internationally, the US is at its nadir. We've never been so misguided, so hated. We're the evil empire, so regarded throughout the world, including among many of our traditional allies.

Economically, we're headed into an abyss of excess spending, due to an orgy of defense spending and a loss of income. We can't support our own, much less others', infirm and helpless. We've misspent our resources on wasteful adventures that cause wreckage of the planet and distrust throughout the world.

The inequities of earnings and wealth in the world are increasing; the waste of resources is profilgate; the lessons of these are unheeded. We are lost and have no desire to find our way. Is it time to bail out of America?

Why not?

Fallujah failure

By now, no one reading this blog is other than a Bush-bashing, Cheney-loathing leftist. But even those must read this evaluation of the US actions in Fallujah.

Isn't there anything we can do to save these people, and ourselves, from these evil warmongers?

No comfort at all

Now that Bush won the election, he's publicly eating his words--expressing regrets over the phrase "Bring 'em on!" for example--but meanwhile he's packing his administration with yea-sayers and proceeding along with his announced agenda of "staying the course" in Iraq, privatizing Social Security, limiting lawsuits and so forth.

So if he's doing precisely what he said he'd do, why has his approval rating plummeted? His approval numbers, which hovered in the 52% range in the weeks before the election (as opposed to Kerry's 48%), are now in the mid-40's, as low as any president's on the eve of inauguration.

Could it be that a majority of us hate this asshole, but that at least he's an asshole we know, as opposed to one we never learned to know?

Did you know this?

That some of the prisoners being held in the abu Graib prison are being taken to a courthouse to be tried in court? Apparently some escaped while being transported, otherwise I sure didn't know that was happening.

What court is trying them? What are the charges? Is there coverage allowed of the trials and if so, why aren't we being clued in by any media? And if the trials aren't public--as Saddam Hussein's trials were not--what's that about it the "democracy" that's being showcased in Iraq?

And the rope handcuffs? Does this story give off a bit of an odor to you?

Don't let Bush get away with it

Here's the deal. The Bushies have lately been downgrading expectations for the election, and will soon be downgrading the expectations for the occupation itself. After the January 30 election, chaos will reign in Iraq, we all know that--even the administration predicts it--but what will happen is that our troops will withdraw into the many bases we've built in Iraq and will therefore suffer fewer deaths while they watch what plays out in Iraq. Craziness, of course, but our forces will intrude only when the craziness begins to impinge on the actions of the pro-US government that is bound to be elected.

Bottom line: Bush will claim victory in Iraq by the establishment of a large US force in the nation to watchdog its government and police its politics so that it remains loyal to the US. What this will look like, precisely, is the Vichy government of France, where the Nazis allowed the southern French to run their domestic affairs with Nazi oversight, largely because the Nazis couldn't afford the money and troops to be full-time enforcers in the region, but they nevertheless maintained fierce control.

There won't be anything like "democracy" in Iraq. It will be a cauldron of conflict and misery--but it will be our cauldron. We'll be in place, wedged into and in control of the country and its assets and its politics.

Bottom, bottom line: This is, of course, why our soldiers died: so we could control Iraq. The same reason Caesar's legions and Alexander's armies died. Not for democracy, for empire.

Now wait a little minute here, buddy

The resolution by which Congress (including Kerry, to his eternal discredit) authorized Bush to wage war in Iraq does not, by its terms, allow Bush to take a whack at Syria, as is now under discussion. A careful reading of the resolution delimits Bush to action against Iraq and requires periodic reports to Congress about his actions. Clearly, unless Bush seeks additional authority his actions will be in violation of the US constitution, not to mention international law. Maybe, if Bush does seek authority from Congress, the Democrats can find the guts to stand against such an outrageous extension of this mad adventure.

Up from the canvas

Here's a piece I wrote to the editor of the SB News-Press. Don't know if they'll print it. I must say, though, this Gonzales is a slimeball, bigtime.

To the Editor:

Remember less than three months ago when we Americans faced the most
momentous election—our gravest political choice--in memory? How could we
forget? How indeed?

It was billed “The Battle for the White House” and it was the longest, most expensive pre-fight promotion in history. The marquee carried their names as a tag-team: Bush/Cheney vs. Kerry/Edwards. Each contestant was skilled, both teams well-fitted. The promoters and pundits touted the match ceaselessly and as the election neared the pollsters called it a toss-up. Interest in the outcome was keen.

The incumbents’ handlers proclaimed that the election pitted principled patriotism against squishy internationalism, determination against equivocation, traditional values against unrestrained license. The opponents countered, claiming that the battle was between truth and falsehood, reason and force, greed-driven inequity and fairly-apportioned means, peace and war. Each side had its ardent,
well-publicized proponents: FoxNews/Clear Channel faced off against “the
liberal media”; Limbaugh/Hannity against Moore/Franken; Christian
Evangelicals against Hollywood Heavyweights. Each team had its unquestioning,
unswerving supporters: Nascar dads and Born-agains for Bush/Cheney; eggheads and alienateds for Kerry/Edwards.

The divisions of fan-base therefore couldn’t have been clearer—this was no Tweedle-dee/Tweedle-dum election—and the stakes couldn’t have been higher. Everybody—the pundits, the contestants, even the voters, agreed: The Battle for the White House was indeed The Battle of the Century, the twentieth as well as the twenty-first.

The match went the distance. The incumbents won fair and square (maybe). But
by no means was it a one-sided bout. The electors of a single populous
state, or a combination of two smaller states out of fifty, were the difference.
But nevertheless, in the intervening weeks, here’s what the incumbents have
done.

First, even before all the votes, by punch or tap, were finally tallied, they declared that they’d handily pinned the opponents (or knocked them out, depending on your choice of metaphor), and thereupon claimed a mandate to rule. Next, they cleared out their Cabinet, moving all but those most solidly in their corner out into private (and very gainful, no doubt) employment, and elevated or retained those who’d been most loyal, regardless of merit, thereby consolidating their power. Third, they announced a series of programs—limiting consumer lawsuits, perpetuating tax reductions for the wealthy, opening national parks to mining and logging, entrusting Social Security funds to private investment, cutting back on international aid to
developing nations—to make certain their intentions are clear: They’d won the
battle for the White House and meant to claim the spoils.

That includes the spoils of war—that is, wars. The war in Iraq and the war on terror.
Remember them? Those are the wars that have gone so well, according to the
incumbents, that they had the temerity recently to award their planners—Tenet,
Bremer and Franks—the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Meanwhile, Iraqi
cities lie in ruins and the country remains a shooting gallery for our
soldiers—1350 of whom have died there, and 10,000-plus have been wounded—and a haven for insurgents. Afghanistan is also largely a wasteland, its peoples
destitute, that has deteriorated into heroin-heaven run by warlords. And
by all accounts—including those of the State Department, the CIA and the
Pentagon—the standing of the United States in the world—Europe, Eurasia, the
Middle East, even South America and Africa—has deteriorated significantly since
the US began its recent reign as world tyrant.

So here’s the question. Given that the election was a tough bout with high stakes and that the winners are claiming and wielding their power with the obvious—indeed, announced—purpose to effectuate their odious (to the losers) agenda, what do the losers do now? Do they remain forever on the canvas, allowing the
incumbents to dance around the ring in celebration? Do they let the
incumbents kick them while they’re down? Or do they, acting out the
American ideal of courage and perseverance in the face of acknowledged
adversity, rise up and say enough!

Well, here’s their chance. The incumbents, flushed with the arrogance of victory, have designated as their choice for the next Attorney General—the nation’s chief law enforcement officer—a man who has in writing presented a legal case to justify
the use of abuse and torture of prisoners, and in the process has belittled the
humanitarian provisions of Geneva Convention, a treaty that the US sponsored,
has rigorously observed and adhered to for decades. The man, Alberto Gonzales,
whom the incumbents seek to have serve as enforcer of our federal laws and
arbiter of their scope, must not be allowed such power.

The opponents must now rise from the canvas, wipe off the sweat and raise their
gloves. So too must any citizen of the United States, supporter of the
Bush/Cheney card or not. We must defeat Gonzales’ nomination. This nation
cannot stand among those who make up the civilized community with him in charge
of our laws. Our troops abroad will pay the price—an horrific price of
fear and flesh—because our most vicious enemies will believe, with Gonzales as
our Attorney General, that we are like them. We ask enough of our soldiers
to send them off to endless, meaningless battles. We can’t strip them of
the one protection they have from desolation and horrible death: The sense that
the nation on whose behalf they serve is the finest nation on Earth, a nation
that in all extremities is a nation of laws.

Do we do this one thing? Do we rise up and defeat Gonzales?

Or are we punchdrunk?

End of empire, continued

My post about the end of the American Empire, in particular my welcome farewell to it, wasn't unAmerican, it was anti-empire. Not just this kind of empire--although it sickens me--but the expansionist, grandiose use of technology and arms to attempt to take over the world. I spent many summers in Sweden, a fine nation of fine folks, which was once an imperial power in the northern climes but has apparently learned its lesson and now rests comfortably on the benefits of its peaceful position in the world.

Could the US ever assume such a role? Certainly not with the Bushies in charge.

Yeah, we gotta watch out for those chisling Marines

We wouldn't want them to get away with any cheap medals.

You heard it here first

The American Empire is over. We are now in the post-period, rather like Britain in the mid-1800's, or Rome in the second century. It'll take a few years, perhaps a decade or two, but mark my words, it's over.

Why do I say this? Because the rest of the world has decided to allow us to spend and waste ourselves into oblivion, has determined that its only course is to stand aside while we implode, or explode, depending on your choice of metaphor. Indeed, they're watching us do so. Just check out these facts:

1. They've determined our madness in Iraq is to be allowed to proceed, deaths and destruction and demonic purpose and all, in the face of the unimpeachable history that "democracy," which we profess to be fostering, cannot be achieved through force of arms. They'll observe from the sidelines while we throw our money into that bottomless pit while they build up their infrastructures, they improve their standards of living (already superior to ours), and they grow stronger and wiser and more humane than we.

2. They've determined that our currency should be allowed to survive the assault occasioned by our monetary and fiscal profligacy. They hold so much of our debt that they can't bring themselves to question the worth of the dollar, and so they support it. But they're merely biding their time, knowing that a slow accretion of value of alternative currencies (there are three contenders) will, in the end, benefit them--and doom us.

3. They pretend to support us--perhaps out of fear of not supporting us--but are merely fiddling while we burn. They buy our products (although some of them are rebelling), they bow to our culture (ditto), they suck up to our leaders (ditto, ditto), all the while wishing for, and plotting, our demise.

Every empire, every dominant culture--Egypt, Persia, Greece, Rome, France, Britain (not to mention USSR)--has expired, doomed by the weight of its righteous assumption of propriety. The United States, after all is said and done, will be the briefest empire of all. And I for one say Good Riddance.

Life in the trenches

From Riverbend, at her Baghdad Burning blog:

"The elections are set for the 29th. It's an interesting situation. The different sects and factions just can't seem to agree. Sunni Arabs are going to
boycott elections. It's not about religion or fatwas or any of that so much as
the principle of holding elections while you are under occupation. People don't
really sense that this is the first stepping stone to democracy as western media
is implying. Many people sense that this is just the final act of a really bad
play. It's the tying of the ribbon on the "democracy parcel" we've been handed.

It's being stuck with an occupation government that has been labeled
'legitimate' through elections. We're being bombarded with cute Iraqi
commercials of happy Iraqi families preparing to vote. Signs and billboards
remind us that the elections are getting closer...Can you just imagine what our
history books are going to look like 20 years from now?

"The first democratic elections were held in Iraq on January 29, 2005 under the ever-watchful collective eye of the occupation forces, headed by the United States of America. Troops in tanks watched as swarms of warm, fuzzy Iraqis headed for the ballot boxes to select one of the American-approved candidates..."

Wow!!

I've discovered UnderNews, a website with original articles, a blog, references to progressive material from other sources, that's erudite and clever and insightful. Check it out.

And this related site, FreePress, is a fine source of information about what, to me, has become the most critical subject in our deteriorating democracy, media reform.

This is just a test

My last several posts have drawn zero comments, causing me to wonder if anyone's reading these wondrous observations. I know Kyle is, because I nag him in person. But is anybody else? If so, just now and then let me know. If not, the silence will be telling too.

A timely tsunami

Bushies must be dancing in the oval office, rejoicing in the effects of the tsunami and the media attention it's receiving. I swear, Bush is blessed, a Fortunate Son, to have nature provide him with relief from having to answer for the continuing death toll of US soldiers in Iraq. Does anybody realize that five--count 'em, five--soldiers died yesterday? That was once big news, but now with hundreds of thousands of bodies in Indonesia and India and places like that, it feels puny to complain about just five--count 'em, five--dead Americans and the scores of others who died in the past week in the war we've waged in Iraq.

I gotta tell ya, there's something horribly wrong with this nation, its media, its morality. Something wicked and, it feels, irremediable.

Fallujah's not forgotten

The recent report of the ascending death toll in Fallujah, a high percentage of the victims being children, are emanating from medical officials who survived the attack three months ago. Recall, the first target in that assault by Marines was a hospital that was claimed to be a nest of insurgency because it kept complaining of the death toll. Well, that place is toast, so these awful numbers must be from a "reliable" source, i.e., someone even the US can't impeach.

Are we safer yet?

So now, in addition to al Qaida, we've got the Iraqi resistance announcing that they're going to attack the US. Thanks, George.

Interesting statistic

The number of Iraqi policemen and security troops killed by the insurgency since the US occupation is 1300, just about the same number of soldier/corpses as the US has experienced, which means that as of today almost as many people have died "liberating" Iraq as died in 9/11. My reaction? Disgust. And if you add in the number of American and Iraqi wounded, plus the number of Iraq deaths since the US invasion (estimated at 100,000), I feel an inexpressible revulsion at those--Bush and his evildoing henchmen--who've brought this on. May they rot in hell, and if there's no hell, may they simply rot.

Spinning, spinning

Even before the Western media announces the US Army's capture of their pre-determined super bad-guy in Iraq, Al-Zarqawi, the anti-occupation groups in Iraq are claiming that he's just another bad guy and that his arrest won't diminish the power of the insurgency, that it's Iraqis, not just outlanders, who want the US to cease its occupation.

So--is there truth somewhere in the middle of this muddle?

Why our billions and our soldiers are being spent in Iraq

Here's the deal: All previous false justifications for this illegal war have evaporated in light of reality. So here are the three that are left.
First, we broke it, we own it. Great. A terrific reason for killing and maiming them and us: To keep Bush/Rummie/Condi from losing face.
Second, we're building a free nation. Great. With force of arms we're installing "democracy"? Is there any historical precedent for the success/justification of this? I defy anybody to come up with one--and that's the reason the Republicans, including Bush/Rummie/Condi, have said this cannot be a reason for our expenditure of life and treasure abroad.
Third--and this is what I most often hear on the barricades from slope-headed Bush supporters--we're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here. Fabulous. We create a war and wage it with fury, killing and maiming thousands of our soldiers, and multi-thousands of Iraqis, in a battle we created as a diversion. That's it, Mr. and Mrs. Republican, slope-headed American: Your kid died as a decoy, a fakey wooden-duck target, to keep the bad guys whom we've provoked from knocking down our towers and symbols and freeways.

Well, if anyone's willing to admit to such a senseless, inane, false justification for the slaughter of innocents, let them be labeled barbarians, because this is precisely the barbarity that I for one thought we'd evolved from.

One look into the simian face, the fatuous, ignorant visage of our leader, placed in power by fatuous ignorance, tells me this: Americans, all but me and 52 million others who voted Bush out, deserve the deaths they're inflicting on the world. The continued wails from the warriors and their supporter to "support the troops" is rank idiocy. Support the troops by getting them home, giving them some loving and education and a decent task to do.

Rowdy Saudi

It seems that a principal planner of the deadly blast last month that killed 18 US troops in the mess hall in Mosul, Iraq, was a Saudi Arabian. So were most of the WTC and Pentagon attacks on 9/11. I wonder why, since we've laid waste to Iraq and Afghanistan in pursuit of "terrorists" we haven't attacked Saudi Arabia? Any ideas?

Genius at work

Bush's nominee for Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, is a fascist pig--but he's a Latino fascist pig. As this NYT essay points out, he'll face "hard questioning" by the Senate Judiciary Committee before it sends its recommendation of approval to the Senate, but eventually he'll be confirmed. The "story" of his rise from poverty to power will be too irresistible for the Senate to ignore; it will instead ignore his evil opinions on matters of torture, treaty and justice.

Reagan came up with a black fascist pig for the Supreme Court, a man whose qualifications were minimal for the seat and whose conduct was genuinely ugly and reprehensible. Now this. Where do the Republicans get these people? Out of what cave do they crawl?

Clint Eastwood

I'm watching the Actors' Studio interview of Clint Eastwood. He's certainly a charming guy, good looking, straight-talking. But I've never been much of a fan of his acting--he seems entirely one-dimensional--nor of his directing, even though he's received adulation and awards galore for his movies. I didn't sign on to the Mystic River cult and even The Unforgiven was, to me, a fine, but somewhat ordinary story.

He's just come out with a movie about a female boxer and I heard a reviewer say what I've been wanting to say for years: That Clint Eastwood is revered by actors and fellow-traveling movie folks more for his persona than his talent.

So, you see, I have more interests than just picking on Bush/Cheney/Rummie/Condi. I can pick on Clint too.

Thoughts on the new year

My brother sent me an email today that I'm setting out as a post on this blog. We think alike, my brother and I, and so if he protests my posting his thoughts, I hereby adopt them as my own.

So we drift into another year as nature wreaks greater havok than war.. A Tsunami that no one could have predicted has randomly inflicted suffering on poor people in third world countries. Thr magnitude of this disaster dwarfs the Florida hurricanes and the twin towers tragedy. And while the world mourns the innocent loss of life, the survival of almost a million of survivors becomes questionable. . And this country continues another year of wasting its human and material recourses in a futile Iraq war that cannot be won militarily. It's another Vietnam alright and we are doomed to defeat. This year will bring more humiliation and disgrace as well as outright danger from the terrorists we have spawned by our stupidity.Using military force to fight a guerilla war in a country with so many cultural and religious obstacles to having a democratically government will only make the situation worse. We need to bring our troops home now and let the chips fall where they may. If, by some miracle, we extract our military from Iraq this year, we may preserve our own democracy that is at risk by continuing this misadventure. May the new year bring the blessing of bringing our troops home from a war that not only is not necessary to our national security but is endangering it.

Who writes this stuff?

This AP report, carried on ABC's website, adopts the Bush administration spin entirely as to its reaction to the damage caused by the tsunami in Asia. It leads with Colin Powell's imminent visit to the area, accompanied by Jeb Bush (supposedly because of his familiarity with relief efforts), and touts the administration's "broadening of its effort" at relief, quoting exclusively Republicans' concerns for the needy and displaced. Buried at the end of the story are the tallies of other nations' financial commitments to the effort and the aside that they "far outdistance" the US contribution. Not a mention of the obvious: That Jeb Bush's involvement is an early step in advertising him for a White House bid in 2008; and that five days have passed since the disaster and only now is there any official response by the administration (other than a Bush's earlier reaction that the US is not "stingy" with its foreign assistance).

The AP dispatch isn't a news item, it's a Republican "talking points" memo.

The end of war

There was a time, about fifteen years ago, when I felt as does the author of this fine essay, that humankind possessed the capacity for peace, that the prospect of world peace was at hand. Walls had crumbled, dictatorships had ended, new alliances were being formed in place of decades of hostilities. There was talk among economists of a "peace dividend," the reversion of massive sums of money and effort that could be turned to humanitarian goals now that major enmities had ended.

I wish I shared the author's view--it's more of a hope, really--that humans can know peace, but while I acknowledge her perspective, I find little comfort in it. True, we now embrace wider notions of justice and include more humans within our concept of entitlement to decency. But as we've done so, we've also expanded our capacity to kill and exploit. Our race may indeed be more sensitive to suffering, but it is also more able to inflict it, creating, in my mind, a race much closer to the finish than ever before.

Molly Ivins has a point

The reason she doesn't write fiction, she tells us, is that truth is so much more interesting and odd and, actually, unbelievable than anything a writer could make up. The examples she gives are amusing, to which I would add a few that are so astounding as to be too far out to make it into even a Tom Clancy novel. (1) The largest ocean liner in history, carrying titans of industry on its maiden voyage, sinks in the Atlantic less than a day from its destination, New York City. (2) An odd-looking, uneducated Austrian, fresh from prison, becomes the leader of a German nationalist party and goes on to cause world devastation. (3) A second-rate Texan, loser in his only solo business ventures, is made president of the US without winning a majority of votes and goes on to wreak havoc and misery on the world's populace.

Yeah, Molly's got a point. You couldn't make any of those stories up.