I wanna be a headline-writer.

Forget about paperback writer, a headline writer's the heavy-hitting dude. I mean, check out Reuters: "GDP Growth Strongest in 2 1/2 Years." Wowzer-dowzer!

Then scroll down the article to the meat of the matter. Not the funny math that makes up the GDP, but the math that matters: Wages. Here's what you'll find:

"PAY RISES LAG
Separately, the Labor Department said employment costs measuring what employers pay in wages and benefits rose at the slowest pace in seven years during the first quarter, which should temper concerns about potential wage-induced inflation."

So--the rich get richer and the poor stay poor. The Republican paradigm.

A related subject, somewhat related

One thing I enjoy: Anticipating outcomes. Like my Hillary Watch, to see with what ugliness she navigates between being a pro-war whore and, come 2006, an "I-told-you-so" peacenik. It's gonna be fun to watch.
Another, unrelated, development, but also fun to watch. What is the LPGA--the Ladies Professional Golf Association, for you incogniti--gonna do about the emerging dominance of their tour by "Orientals"? For example, as of today, the end of the next-to-last round of a large tournament in Florida, televised by a major network, the surnames of the three leaders, who're far ahead of the field, are Kim, Miyazato and Kim. Not a gringa in the bunch.

It's because they're good golfers, but land-o-goshen, they're awful TV draws, many barely able to speak English, with on-screen personalities of shy, sweet ladies, entirely unquotable. And--to repeat--not gringas.

Call me racist, but you watch, and giggle with me, as the LPGA finds a way to prevent this from becoming a regular occurence without, of course, admitting that what they want is more ladies with Western Hemisphere surnames on the leaderboard.

A bit of history

Print this out, press it into your scrapbook to give to your grandchildren so you can tell them that we knew, we really knew, what was happening to us.

Silver foot

Recall the remark by the woman governor of Texas, Anne Richards, commenting on Bush's father at the Democratic convention: "Poor George, he was born with a silver foot in his mouth"? Well, so was his son.

Oh, Please, please

Don't let this be b.s.

Diner

I just watched it on Turner Classic Movies. What a great flick. Fine soundtrack (I knew the words to most of the songs!), and a list of male actors that reads like a Who's Who in film and TV acting, plus Ellen Barkin. And it ends on a happy note, the wedding of the girl who passes the sports quiz to the Paul Reiser character. Great movie.

A Place in the Sun

It's on Turner Classic Movies tomorrow (Sunday) evening, with a repeat later in the week. Clift/Taylor, love and loss. Don't miss it. Along with the Brando/Malden classic, One-Eyed Jacks, it's a favorite of mine.

Breaking News!

FEMA recommends abolishing the Bush administration.

Can you imagine

what Sean Hannity or Michael Savage or Rush Limbaugh would be saying if Iraqi troops killed four American soldiers "by mistake"? (Scroll down to Samarra entry.)

No wonder Rove is sweating bullets

This be the judge what sits on the Scooter Libby case.

Gasoline prices

All these proposals ($100 rebates, oil drilling in Alaska, investigation of "price gouging")--so silly. Imagine the effect on oil prices if Bush (he wouldn't do it, of course, but imagine) announces that he wants to enter into bilateral talks with Iran about their nuclear program; announces a firm date for withdrawal from Iraq; announces that he will personally intervene in the pricing of oil at all levels--production cartels, refining cartels, distribution cartels; and that he's announcing huge tax benefits for alternative fuel. Could it happen? Not for the next three years, not while Bush is president. And by the time there's another president, it may be too late.

That sound you hear

is the crash of the dollar.

Maliki unmasked and unleashed

The new PM of Iraq, according to this analysis, is as bad as it gets. His appointment by our lackeys in Iraq was at our instance--Condi's and Bush's. Is this another--the final--egregious error they make in Iraq? How many more lives will it cost us--and the Iraqis?

Hooray for us

California Assemblyman Paul Koretz of Los Angeles has introduced a resolution calling for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney. Here's a site that announces it, and if you scroll down sets out of series of supporting actions you can take.

Enjoy.

Bush's belief that God supports his foreign policy

Caught on tape. Be afraid, be very afraid.

Earth Day propaganda

This Raw Story article--make sure to click through to read the "Earth Day" site to which Raw Story refers--pulls no punches. Our tax dollars are being used by the House Republican majority to attack environmentalists in the guise of supporting Earth Day. I mean, it's so baldly transparent that you think--as did the Germans in 1934--they can't get away with this. But they keeping doing such things, and they keep getting away with it.

"Still free"

That's the sign a tagger spray-painted on Air Force One. Check out the video here.

The guy's got way more guts than I.

Blaming Bush

Here's how radicalized I've become. I blame Bush for this. Don't ask me how I can attribute it to Bush--I can. Just like the Christian Right can blame hippies for all that they see as evil, I find myself able to lay all misfortunes on my hated enemy. I've lost all objectivity. I despise Bush/Cheney/Rummie/Condi/Wolfie/Pearlie--pick a name--so deeply that it doesn't matter what goes wrong, what evil happens in the world. It's their fucking fault.

Now, ain't that grand!

The kids at my college alma mater, Stanford U, turned out in force to protest Bush's presence on the campus, so powerfully that Bush and his entourage were forced to change the location of his visit. The campus paper's report is detailed, supportive. I particularly like its recital of some of the chants and signs and slogans, of which my favorite (scroll down) is one from a Guatemalan student: "For every pig there will be a Saturday." I think it refers to a dish, like posole, made from pork, which is a weekend treat.

I was too prescient

Back before the 2004 election, I predicted that Bush would ensure his victory over Kerry (it was a close race, recall), by naming a new Vice Presidential running mate, Cheney having begged off due to "ill health." I was wrong. But maybe just premature, because in this article by John Dean, at the conclusion of his analysis of Bush's character, he virtually guarantees that Bush will pull off an October Surprise to avoid election of a confrontive Congress, and Dean's first suggestion is that Bush will receive Cheney's resignation and will appoint a more moderate VP.

(Dean also suggests an attack on Iran, of course, and given the present course of events, I agree with Dean that this is a likely, scary prospect.)

Ya gotta love it

For years, the US has backed its lackey institution, The International Monetary Fund, when it chides debtor nations for imbalances in spending, and issues calls for fiscal soundness (which means proof of an ability to pay back IMF loans) usually at the expense of social programs in the debtor nation. But now, the IMF has criticized the US for its lack of budgetary restraint and its failure to provide universal health care to its citizens, and the Bush administration doesn't like it, not one bit.

Deck chairs on the Luisitania

I'm back on the blog after a few days without a cyberconnection in Tucson--didn't even take my laptop with me!--only to find that you've done nothing in my absence but move deck chairs. Lots of them, however. We won't have Scott McClellan to kick around anymore, Rove's dodging indictment and in Iraq there's a new Prime Minister, maybe.

I'm not sure what effect this last move will have on the ongoing violence, because al-Maliki is a clone of al-Jaafari, but maybe Iraq will settle down somewhat, enough for us to begin pulling out some troops. You know--you just know--that Bush will praise the new PM to the skies and will use the event to talk about troop reductions, and will surely withdraw some thousands in time for our November midterm elections. But I wouldn't bet on any significant change in the situation in Iraq "on the ground," as opposed to the White House press releases.

BTW--The Dawa Party, which both al-Jaafari and Maliki are affiliated with, are no slouches when it comes to the use of terror and violence. I Googled Dawa to learn of its past and among other items came up with Juan Cole's recent analysis.

The end of times

This fine essay spells it out. I feel it too. We're approaching the edge of something very big in the course of humankind. The courses we now take are utterly divergent: One to peace and goodness and the shepharding of the planet and each others' liberties; the other to intolerance and war.

Am I crazy? Do you feel it too?

Who wants war with Iran?

Ya know, it's not just the NeoCons who are beating the drums for an armed intervention in Iran. Sure, they'd love it. It would fulfill, for the time being, their dream of an Americanized (and Israelized) Middle East. For the time being, because when the place catches fire, it's going to be nobody's nowhere. But I digress.

No, not just the NeoCons, not at all. Like this author, who, like me, proposes a dramatic diplomatic intervention by the US and other nations, I missed the major player. It's the media, stupid. The American networks want war, dammit. They relish the speculation about it, they nurture the prospect of it, and they adore the drama of it all, from buildup to attack to ruin.

The media won't get viewership from the comings and goings of diplomats, the announcements of protocols and dialogs. No, like they did in the buildup and "shock and awe" of the Iraq invasion, they'll benefit only from coverage of conflict, bombs and blood and guts.

It's not pleasant to admit, but we as a nation haven't progressed one little inch from 100 years ago when the Hearst papers spurred us to war with Spain. Then it was to sell papers, now it's to sell air-time.

A new low

Rassmussen Reports, which I follow daily, shows a three-point drop in Bush's approval ratings, to thirty-nine percent, with sixty percent disapproving (43% "strongly"). These are all new lows (or highs, depending on your point of view), in this poll that invariably shows figures more favorable to Bush than the other pollsters.

A tipping point?

Update: When US News & World Report--hardly a leftist rag--says that Bush's down-home, aw-shucks, manner is "wearing thin" you gotta believe it is. Indeed, it's not wearing thin, it's worn out.

Don't execute Moussaoui

For the reasons stated here.

Indeed, I was going to add this reason: That by not executing him we'd avoid handing the other side a martyr, we'd be showing them we're better than they are, and so forth. But no. The reason we shouldn't execute him is simple: It's immoral to kill a human being.

Another story to track

is this one, about the hundreds of millions of dollars that corrupt American contractors have stolen from Iraqi funds. Seems that they've also stolen huge sums of American money, and that legal proceedings are underway to recoup some of it. But the Iraqis can't recoup their money from American companies because under the "Transitional Law" that Bremer imposed on Iraq, American companies are immune from suit by Iraqis.

This story highlights (almost) everything that's wrong with the Bush administration: The evils of greed, conquest and occupation, of capitalism unchecked, of imperial hubris, of unaccountability.

Will we see/hear about it on the MSM? Let's check.

Happy talk

This report of the effect of Bush's spate of optimistic speeches on Iraq upon his poll numbers (no effect, by the way) is good reporting. Sometimes USA Today comes up with decent summaries of the news, even if it's not known for investigative reporting.

The arrogance of power

This example of egregious in-your-face federal spending is enough to make me pause over my check to the IRS and seriously consider tax protesting. I mean, my likely destination upon conviction would be Lompoc Correctional Facility, just fifty miles up the coast.

Ugly Americans

Why do they hate us? This "apology" by the US military for destroying the ruins of the city of Babylon surely is one reason. Check out, especially, the last two sentences. Straight out of VietNam's famous "We destroyed the village in order to save it."

Here's what's wrong with the Democrats

This post, offering a Democratic response to the Iran "crisis" is so wrong, so stupid, that I had to leave a comment--scroll way down on the many comments--to this effect: The post makes the classic blunder of adopting the Republicans' frame: of attacking Iran or not. That's not the issue. The issue is how to create a Middle East that doesn't adopt weapons as the only dialog. The Democrats should be demanding that Bush engage in face-to-face dealings with Iran to avert further escalation. We know Bush won't do it, but having failed to he won't be on the high ground anymore, and the Democrats will have seized the moment.

Update: Somebody's listening to me about having direct negotiations with Iran. A Republican, that's who. And not just any Republican. A heavy hitter.

A thought about despair

So many things are amiss in the world--not just the many things caused by the Bush/Cheney administration (although many are attributable to them)--that I'm inclined simply to give up, to quit the battle. Would you miss me?

No October surprise

It's not that Bush isn't going to attack Iran in October. He surely will. However, it won't be a surprise. By now, everybody on this side of the pond expects it, and Iran's latest actions are ensuring it. Indeed, Iran's systematic, trumpeted defiance of international approbrium leads one to wonder whether Karl Rove has a direct line to President Ahmadinejad and is dictating his script.

Do we have to do everything for them?

Can't the Iraqis even solve this problem ? I mean, why don't they just siphon it out of the gutters?

More than fifty million Americans voted

to put this idiot into office. Check out this video and, if you can, laugh at us.

Don't believe me

about the iffy state of affairs in Iraq, in Baghdad in particular. Believe this article in The Army Times.

Tipping points

It's not just the glaciers or the Gulf Stream. It's the economy, stupid.

I don't want to be a spoilsport, but

will somebody tell me where in this resolution authorizing Bush to use force against Iraq there's any authority granted by Congress allowing him to attack Iran? I mean, doesn't our president at least have to consult Congress before launching missles against a foreign power?

If you've stumbled onto a different constitution from mine, let me know what it says. But then again, maybe I'm just a silly strict-constructionist. A conservative, you might say.

Lying leaks

This WaPo article is long, but its gist is this: The supposed "declassification" that Bush supposedly "authorized" was supposedly the justification of Libby's statements to reporters (Woodward, Miller) to buttress the Niger-uranium claim in the face of Ambassador Wilson's revelation that it was bogus. But the leaks of the Niger-uranium claim were themselves bogus, because the Niger-uranium claim had already been discounted. So, even as leakers Bush/Cheney are liars.

A thousand words

If you want to know about John McCain, picture this.

I'm ambivalent

about this remark by British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw that an attack on Iran would be "completely nuts." On the one hand, I figure such a statement by our strongest ally when we attacked Iraq would operate to inhibit us from using military force against Iran; on the other hand, Straw's comment might merely be descriptive of Bush/Cheney, goading them to action, since they are indeed completely nuts.

He wouldn't dare

That's what they kept saying about Adolph Hitler during his five-year march to war against Poland; during his years of outrages against Jews, Poles, gypsies; during his planning and execution of war against Stalin. But he just kept on fooling them, doing precisely what they said he wouldn't dare do.

Bush has, consistently during his first term-plus one-fourth, done so many things that we thought he wouldn't dare do: withdrawing from the Kyoto treaty; conducting secret meetings to plan our energy future with fossil-fuel companies; selling out our national forests to the timber companies; trying to privatize social security; appointing reactionaries to the Supreme Court--all on top of his outrageous, he-wouldn't-dare, foreign policy moves and wars.

Now, with his poll numbers in the tank, with Iraq promising to sink him further, with scores of scandals threatening to cause the election of a Democratic House of Representatives (which has the power to conduct hearings, indeed, to pass a resolution of impeachment), "he wouldn't dare" cause an "October surprise" in the form of an attack on Iran--right?

Wrong.

Just think about it for a second...

Three bombs go off in sequence in Baghdad, killing 79 worshippers at a mosque. Baghdad's about the same population as Los Angeles. Can you imagine the horror, the furor, such an attack would cause here in the US? And this is just one day in the life of that sad, wrecked city, one attack among scores a day.

The "O J" word

Recall these interesting historical facts in view of Libby's testimony to the the grand jury that Cheney told him that Bush had authorized the leaking of selective (and, by the way, misleading) information about the state of intelligence showing that Saddam Hussein intended to build a nuclear bomb. (What is misleading, of course, is the the National Intelligence Estimate that Bush apparently authorized the disclosure of said that while some intelligence indicated that the aluminum tubes might be used to enrich uranium, other intelligence (from the State Department and the Department of Energy) indicated the tubes were merely for launching conventional rockets--and Bush authorized only the release of the former information.)

Historical fact #1.

Fitzgerald wanted to interview both Bush and Cheney about the leaks of Valerie Plame's identity, but after much resistance (even though Bush had said he wanted to get to the bottom of the leaks) Bush allowed Fitzgerald a one-hour interview, not under oath, and only in the presence of Cheney.

Historical fact #2.

Bush consulted a criminal attorney, who attended the interview, and who insisted that the interview be limited to the leak of Plame's identity.

Historical fact #3.

Bush had personally seen a summary of the National Intelligence Estimate, which included the reservations about the intelligence concerning the aluminum tubes, and so the selective leaking was done by Bush knowing it didn't tell the whole picture about the tubes.

Historical fact #4.

When the fallacy of the Niger-uranium intelligence was coming to light because of Ambassador Wilson's revelations, that left only the aluminum tubes as evidence of Saddam's nuclear plans. Thus it became vital to reveal this information to the public in advance of the upcoming election, and to withhold the qualification of the intelligence--as part of the effort to shore up Bush's standing on the invasion of Iraq, along with the attack on Wilson's status.

So now the question becomes, did Fitzgerald, in his interview with Bush/Cheney ask any questions, and did the latter give any answers, that misled Fitzgerald in his investigation of the Plame leak? If he asked Bush/Cheney something like, "Was there any effort made by you to counter the adverse impression that Wilson was giving about Saddam's potential danger to the US"? and Bush/Cheney said "no," then that would be a lie, a lie that could have the effect of obstructing Fitzgerald's investigation into the source of the Plame leak. And that could be "obstruction of justice"--the same charge that brought Nixon down.

Stay tuned.

More Riverbend

Here she's interviewed by al-Jazeera, telling about the blogging life.

Well, now, things are getting interesting

Up to now, Bush's defenses--to his lies that led to war, to his torture and endless imprisonment of enemies, to his illegal wiretapping of Americans--have been based on his claim that whatever was done was (1) not his fault, and/or (2) done in furtherance of the public's safety. But now, with Scooter Libby laying at his feet, through Cheney, the personal responsibility for authorizing the selective leaking national security information to NYT reporter Judith Miller, both defenses are down. This action is Bush's own--not Tenet's, not Gonzales'--and the leaks were authorized not even colorably to defend Americans but to defend Bush from claims that he lied about prewar intelligence, a purely political breach of national security done for personal reasons.

Bush has become Nixon, and Plamegate has now officially become Watergate II.

Chop wood, carry water

Check out Riverbend's reaction to learning of her recent awards, especially her tending to the parakeet's cage.

There's a lesson there folks.

Sometimes ya gotta lighten up

So--here's a great cartoon.

Did you know

that ten soldiers (5 Army, 5 Marines) were killed in Iraq yesterday? I thought not. You sure wouldn't know it from the MSM.

Make that eleven.

Knight-Ridder rocks

This kind of reporting--a detailed, fact-filled exposition of the administration's refusal to face the facts about the Iraqi insurgency--is what Knight-Ridder has, throughout this Iraq debacle, presented to the American people. Repeatedly, its stories have gone no farther than the wireservices that carry it. I predict that no mention of this astoundingly revealing story will make it to the MSM. Let's track it, okay?

Permanent bases in Iraq

Here's a worthwhile survey of the state of permanent bases in Iraq. Astounding figures, included, such as that of 20,000 servicepersons at one base, only 1000 ever leave its confines during a tour of duty.

Among the reasons permanent bases are likely, says one source, is that the peace movement in the US is "completely pathetic." The source has that right, for sure.

The long haul

Check out this article, an AP dispatch in Military.com, that candidly describes the present status of US air support of Iraqi operations. Bottom line: There's no way, not for years, that we'll turn over control of air support to Iraqis because there's no assurance they won't use airstrikes to settle old tribal scores. It'll take years to train them, and training hasn't even been started yet.

Another fact, quite revealing of the massive scope of the US military activity in Iraq. At just one airbase, in Balad, the Air Force launches 27,500 airplanes a month. That's 900 per day, forty per hour, almost one per minute, 24/7. Now for years I lived in Tucson, with the huge airbase, Davis-Monthan, nearby, and it launched perhaps one airplane per hour--and that noise was oppressive. Imagine, with scores of additional bases in and around Iraq, the enormity of the military might we're expending in that sad, ugly war.

Fasten your seat belts

Here comes the attack on Iran.

The latest

Okay, I was way late catching on to "Snakes on a plane," but two days ago I stumbled onto the acronym ITMFA. It's gonna catch on, bigtime, right?

Permanent bases in Iraq?

Continuing my reporting of developments on this issue, here's a brief post by Gary Hart with which I agree, that such bases must not be established. Trouble is, the link he provides to a Reuters story, which he claims attributes an assertion of such bases to the commander of American forces in Iraq, doesn't really support his claim. So--nothing new.

P.S. I'm not naive, BTW. I know the neocons and military desire permanent bases and are constructing them as I type. I'm just keeping watch on how they manage to pull it off while concealing and denying it all the while. Call it cyber-curiosity.

P.S.S. So, check this out for a quick verification.

Look, we whities have been killing and occupying the lands of these "wogs" for over a century, since oil became a vital resource. Now that it's in even more critical demand, are we whities all of a sudden gonna become benign intervenors, dispossessing dictators and withdrawing to allow the hapless natives control their own liquid gold? Get real, whities. What is their sand doing over our oil?

I love this

Apparently, Bush wrote a letter to influential Iraqi Shia cleric al-Sistani, suggesting that the cleric intervene or at least express a preference that the Premier-designate, al Jaafari, not be selected for an upcoming term. The letter was hand-delivered, but al-Sistani, who's tired of Bush's meddling in Iraq's affairs, put the letter aside and hasn't even had it translated.

Ya gotta love it.

What do you think?

Bush is in Mexico, touring some Mayan ruins today. Will he comprehend the historical similarities between the steps he's taking to try to build an American empire and the causes of the decline and decay of the Mayan civilization?

Don't bet on it. He'll have a tough enough time fighting back the urge to slug down a cerveza or ten.

This is comforting

According to a Reuters report, that disputed assault a few days ago by US and Iraqi forces wasn't on a mosque, after all. According to a rescued kidnap victim and the Iraqi military leader it was just a business office of some kind. So--all is well, right? Not quite. According to the rescued victim, he'd been kidnapped and held and tortured by Iraqi militia forces who were supposedly part of Iraqi security, wearing uniforms of the Interior Ministry. Whaaa...? They're supposed to be on our side!

Be the last on your block to know

about this Republican fraud. Hilarious, actually. I've followed it for hours, overnight, while it was exposed by bloggers picking out discrepancies from the photo. The photo? A shot a street scene that a Republican congressional candidate said showed how calm the streets of Baghdad really are, and that the leftists were accentuating the violence to defeat the Bush administration. The photo, the Republican said, was taken by him on a recent trip to Iraq, and for sure, the scene's quite serene, no doubt. Trouble is, the photo's not of a Baghdad street, but of Istanbul.

I've got good taste in blogs

Turns out that one of my favorite, regular links for news about the Middle East, "Informed Comment" by Professor Juan Cole, has been awarded the first-ever Aronson award for Social Justice, announced by Editor & Publisher website.

Bush in a box

At least three tough choices loom for Bush, and we should keep an eye out for how he deals with them. On Iran, without a concensus among the other powers about how to react to its continuing dodging and weaving about its nuclear activities, can Bush--through Cheney's mouthpiece Bolton in the UN--save face while getting results? Military might won't help, so what's Bush to do?
On the immigration bill that Kennedy/McCain sponsored, that gives immigrants a shot at citizenship, how will Bush placate his base without causing a furor among Latinos? Bush is willing to give them a six-year work permit, but requiring them to return home afterward (best of all worlds for agribusiness), and the far right barely tolerates this accommodation. Can Bush find a way through this morass?
The Iraqis are becoming increasingly testy about our military's continued presence. How will Bush deal with the prospect that the "democratically constituted" government will demand our withdrawal of troops, or at least set a timetable for doing so. I would suspect that some leader in Iraq will soon see the popular benefit of making such a demand and will persuade others to join him. How will Bush finesse that prospect?
Bush is so incompetent--has he succeeded at anything in his life?--that it's almost amusing to watch him suffer the consequences of his idiocy.

Another word that's difficult to come up with

is one that describes a person who does this. It's akin to placing explosive candies in schoolyards, but on the grownup level. And because its victim is democracy, it's baseline odious, an act so destructive of our entire system of governance. If there's a hanging offense (and I don't believe in capital punishment), this is it.

Riverbend rocks!

My favorite Iraqi blogger, a young woman whom I've often cited, is a nominee for an important nonfiction award for her blog, Baghdad Burning.

I'm not alone in being confused about what's being reported in Iraq

My preferred expert, Professor Juan Cole, is too.

Who's on first?

Here's BBC's report of some of today's attacks in Iraq. It lists several players: "insurgents," "the Medhi Army," "armed militias," "Iraqi military," "Iraqi police," "Sunnis at prayer", the "US Army", and of course the ubiquitous "innocent bystanders," who likely comprised most of the dead. Can you figure out what happened?

The problem with being a blogger/writer

is that you're expected by others--certainly you expect yourself--to come up with a word to describe the type of person who would do this. Trouble is, like concepts such as infinity and eternity, the human mind cannot conceive of it.

Veep visits

From Metaphor we learn of the list of requirements for any hotel suite that Cheney chooses to stay at during "downtime" when he's traveling. Check it out; and don't forget to flood Cheney's Advance Office with phonecalls as faxes, now that you have their numbers.

How to measure "civil war"

Buried in this ABC News article is this paragraph from yesterday:

South of the capital, 40 people were killed or wounded in a big gunbattle near Mahmoudiya, police said. Police said gunmen of the Shiite Mahdi Army militia were fighting insurgent forces, which are primarily Sunni Muslim.

Now, I'm no genius, but it seems that if a "militia" of one religious sect is engaging in a "big gunbattle" with rebels from another religious sect that sounds like a "civil war" is happening. So, I checked my favorite online source, Wikipedia, to see how "civil war" is defined:

A civil war is a war in which parties within the same country or empire struggle for national control of state power. As in any war, the conflict may be over other matters such as religion, ethnicity, or distribution of wealth. Some civil wars are also categorized as revolutions when major societal restructuring is a possible outcome of the conflict. An insurgency, whether successful or not, is likely to be classified as a civil war by some historians if, and only if, organized armies fight conventional battles. Other historians state the criteria for a civil war is that there must be prolonged violence between organized factions or defined regions of a country (conventionally fought or not). In simple terms, a Civil War is a war in which a country fights another part of itself.

By my reckoning, the fracas in Iraq is walking pretty malardasquely.

The career of the future in America? Divorce lawyer

This article digests an authoritative essay in Foreign Affairs, the salient point of which is that in the near future there will be a huge "sucking" sound as service jobs leave the US, just as manufacturing jobs are. Globalization and electronics are already seeing the loss of phone-bank jobs and such services as computer tech assistants. In the future, the author says, the only jobs that won't be readily out-sourceable will be crane operators, janitors and--maybe--divorce lawyers. (Contract lawyers will of course be outsourced since there's no personal attention to the client.)

A thrilling prospect for college grads: janitor or divorce lawyer. You'll never guess which I'd chose.

Permanent bases continued

I told you a few days ago that I'd keep you posted on the status of permanent military bases in Iraq. Here's the latest.

Anybody want to join me in an income-tax-refusal protest?

For those of you who don't think war is hell...

check out this story about a particularly effective insurgent. And scroll on down the article for enlightenment about the struggle over the city of Kirkuk, and why, among other reasons, the chances of a "unity government" are truly chancey.

Body counting

Here's an article that places the number of dead and wounded American soldiers in perspective: The number of deaths has lately fallen but the number of woundeds has commensurately increased. One additional factor that I read somewhere but can't now find is this: Because this is a desert war--with less risk of infection and similar hazards of a moist environment--and because we control the theater, allowing us to remove wounded soldiers swiftly from battle to treatment facilities, the ratio of deaths to woundeds is quite low. In earlier wars our present total of 19,588 Iraq casualties (17,269 wounded, 2319 dead) would read more like 6,000 dead and 13,000 wounded. It's good news, except that it means a much greater number of severely maimed survivors who will require a lifetime of medical attention.

Me--a Dixie Chick fan?

You betcha. (If the lyrics don't inform you whazzup with the song, click onto the album site which explains it.)

News coverage of Iraq

Bush/Cheney and their camp followers complain that the news coverage of Iraq slants toward the car-bombings and the battles with insurgents instead of toward the positives in the country: building of schools, digging of sewer lines, whatever. Well, Bush/Cheney, you "gotta understand", you folks have conditioned us Americans to react to dramatic events, you've indeed created a political base upon such a culture of fear and destruction, that you surely can't complain that that same culture drives the media in its war coverage. After all, you're the ones who started Shock&Awe, who placed reporters in the tanks of our Army, who reveled in the filming of the toppling of Saddam's statue. Why now, when the war drags on, do you fail to understand that Americans love that stuff--the gore and violence--more than some bricklayer's tale of constructing a school?

Besides, it's gore and terror that the MSM--your best buddies--cover daily here in the US. Are you saying that the MSM should do differently in Iraq? We never learn of a new turnoff being constructed on highway 101--certainly not by TV coverage--so why should the US public be interested in such construction in Iraq? Borrrrring.

He who lives by Shock&Awe shall, hopefully, perish by it.

Postscript--Herewith is the text of a letter to the editor of the Santa Barbara News-Press that tracks the foregoing and that might, maybe, get published since it meets the 250-word limit of the paper and is, of course, brilliant.

Bush/Cheney/Rummie,

You complain that news from Iraq is slanted toward the negative—the deaths, the violence—resulting from US occupation: car-bombings, kidnappings, insurgent attacks. You complain that sufficient coverage isn’t given to “positives”: reconstruction of schools, sewers, bridges. Well, fellas, let me tell you why this is.



First, the “positives” aren’t very positive. Most projects consist of our rebuilding—at outlandish cost—infrastructure that your invasion demolished. Second, many aren’t proceeding, because the cost of keeping rebuilders from being killed has swallowed the money.



Third—the fundamental reason the reporting focuses on violence—is because the Americans who constitute your political base relish it. They don’t tune in to watch road-building and dam-building. They want drama: violence, that’s their fare. Telecasts of government projects? Borrrring. And fellas, you’re no dummies, you know the culture of your base. Indeed, for five years you’ve exploited it. Bigtime.



You trumpeted the horror of 9-11 to justify the invasion of Iraq. You invented “Shock & Awe” to market the bombing of Baghdad and reveled in its coverage. You embedded reporters with our troops to convey the blood-rush of war. You purveyed photos of Saddam’s sons’ corpses and of Saddam’s humiliation. You touted these images and they served you well. Indeed, they’ve kept you in power.



But now, fellas, your time’s up. The marketing of violence you’ve used to support your political position will now, let’s hope, bring an end to the occupation and, let’s further hope, your tenure.

A bad rap

Senator Feingold's censure-Bush resolution has been relegated to the MSM loony-bin, and certainly hasn't become the focus of many other Democrats' urgings. But check out this Newsweek poll on the subject. (Scroll down to the second question in the Newsweek poll): forty-two percent support censure against fifty who oppose it. And that's without meaningful hearings about the wiretapping. Recall, only the author of the wiretaps, Attorney General Gonzales, has ever testified about it--and he said nothing about its breadth or details, simply mouthing its legality. Pat Roberts, Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who's in Bush's pocket, wants to bury the wiretap issue with some soft "advise-the-Congress" legislation; and so the public's right to know now depends on Republican Senator Arlan Specter, who has said he's unpersuaded about the programs' legality and wants to know more. He has the power, through the Senate Judiciary Committee, to call for hearings and a full-scale investigation of the program.

We can only hope that Specter sticks to his guns, because if so the American public will come to understand that this is a vast, ongoing intrusion into our communications, all done without judicial protection, and Feingold's resolution won't look quite so wacky after all. Maybe even some of the hang-back-until-it's-safe-to-jump Democrats (I'm talking about Hillary Clinton and her ilk here) will jump on board, and maybe, just maybe, in the next Congress we'll get the resolution passed. Sometime, somebody's gotta slap the chimp's face. Just once, to see if he can handle it.

I'm awaiting my Time magazine

for a detailed account of this massacre by our Marines, but here's a sketch, apparently supported by a videotape of the dead Iraqi victims, including a three year old child.

I might add that in addition to this atrocity from November 2005, there's apparently a more recent one, from the last day or so, that I will link to when I'm able to find the account of it on the Internet.

Here it is.

In a nutshell

Here's whazzup with Iran in the fewest possible words.

A story worth following

The House passed the huge military appropriations bill last week with a significant amendment, sponsored by the few "good guys" in that body, an amendment barring the use of appropriated funds for establishment of permanent US bases in Iraq. There was hardly a mention of the amendment in the MSM, even though it passed unanimously, and was a rare victory for California Congressperson Barbara Lee, an American heroine. (I didn't catch the news of the passage of the amendment, that's how under-reported it was.)

But of course it's not over. The bill still must go to the House/Senate conference committee, where Republicans rule, and which is supposed to "iron out" differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill, but which can often result in significant alteration of, addition to, and subtraction from, legislation. Let's keep an eye on the fate of Barbara Lee's amendment, shall we? Given the state of public opinion about the Iraq war, it's not going to be easy for the Republicans to delete the amendment in committee.

Am I nuts?

I managed (without gagging) to watch a bit of Bush's speech and Q&A session in Cleveland earlier today. Here is AP's report of the event, so sketchy and silly as to be worthless. True, Bush said very little new (although his demeanor was remarkably glib, given the seriousness of the questions he was asked by a not-entirely-friendly audience, for once). But I picked up on one item that astounded me. He said--without equivocation, without hesitation--that the US would use its "military might" to protect Israel from Iran. Now I don't know about you, but I was unaware of any treaty under which the US is bound to do so, and even if so, any such action would have to be authorized by Congress, not by the unilateral decision by the executive. Maybe I missed something, but does Bush really think he has the constitutional, or Congressionally authorized, power to make war on Iran to protect Israel?

I'm going to await the blogosphere's reaction to Bush's statement, because there's been no reaction to it yet--five hours later--by the MSM that I can find.

deja vu

Check out this article from the NYT about the importance of the high turnout in the democratic elections in showing the viability of the new government, with many quotes about how effective it will be in overcoming the insurgency. Date: 1967. The country: South Viet Nam.

Hurray for CBS

Well, whaddya know. 60 Minutes just aired a powerful segment, excerpted here, about the Bush administration's censorship of global-warming science. The witness was none other that a NASA scientist whose credentials were impeccable, and showed the actual interlineations and deletions of his reports, handwritten by "a lawyer, a politician" in the White House, who had been an oil industry lobbyist before joining the White House staff.

At the end of the segment, the reporter said the White House had refused to comment on the segment, and the "lawyer-politician" was no longer in the White House, having left the administration a year before to be hired by Exxon-Mobil. Good stuff.

The "I" word

You see, I'm not nuts. I've been shouting and displaying a sign demanding impeachment of Bush/Cheney for many months--perhaps years--my thinking being that if that word is uttered enough times it will eventually become part of the public discourse. It's a tactic long used used by the Right, perfected by the Bush administration and it works. On this Sunday, there are numerous print articles, as well as TV interviews, in which the word appears. It's unlikely, even in the next Congress, but it "frames" the issue in terms of Bush/Cheney's failures, which, as we all know, is a large part of the process.

What b.s.

Check out the refinements that appear in this article from Islam Online--admittedly not Faux News or even CNN in "independence" (although probably more accurate). First, check out the photos of troops boarding and getting off choppers. How were these taken, since no "embeds" were allowed to accompany the troops? Obviously the Army took the photos, which are pure publicity shots.
Second, note the quoted line near the end.
"There has been no contact with the insurgents," admitted Major John Calahan of the 101st Airborne Division, a unit specialized in helicopter-borne air assaults that spearheaded the attack.

No insurgents. Not even one? Can we have our money back?

BTW--I'm not the only one to notice the appearance of poorly-disguised political hype in support of this assault.

Be (more) afraid, be very (more) afraid

This article about the "current account deficit" (the astounding imbalance between the flow of dollars into the US and the dollars out) is indeed scary. It's beginning to look like the glacier thing, where the process becomes irreversible because its continuing behavior fuels accelerating behavior. There's talk, these days, about so many "tipping points"--in Iraq, in the economy and the environment--that one wonders whether the Democrats are awaiting post-tipping-point in order to act on anything. In fact, one doesn't wonder. It's clear, from the Democrats' tepid reaction to Senator Feingold's resolution to censure Bush for his illegal wiretapping activities, that there are only a few people in that party who are actively trying to save America, as opposed to saving their own chances for re-relection.

Okay, now I'm getting scared--and pissed off

A federal district judge has denied a defense motion to dismiss a prosecution of two alleged terrorist-supporters, and has not only sealed his decision but has denied to the defense attorneys the right to see it. We are talking about the worst sign of fascism, where even the judiciary caves in to the executive, a distinct prelude to what happened in Germany in the thirties. Be afraid, be very afraid. And be mad.

Oh, wouldn't it be loverly?

If the Republican nominee for President in 2008 was Bill Frist? Even a Democrat could beat him.

What else is new?

Bush lied (again). He's skated so many times (most recently when he was caught telling us that federal wiretaps always require a "court order" but hasn't been called to account for the NSA warrantless surveillance program that he authorized, and scores of times re-authorized), that it's hard to imagine that he'll be caught in this outrageous prevarication.

Recall, when he sought to justify the Dubai ports deal, he said that port security in the US was handled by the Coast Guard and US Customs? Well, not so. According to a just-revealed Congressional report, the security at US ports is woeful, and many of the defects in security are due to lapses by foreigners: shippers, distant port operators, as well as US port operators who don't report to any federal entity.

Goodbye Knight-Ridder

It's going to come down to Reuters, the (London) Times, the Telegraph and Independent of UK, plus some of the foreign press--disseminated by bloggers--to be responsible for the news now that Knight-Ridder's on the block.

Update: Here's the report of the successful bidder for Knight-Ridder. I don't know what it means in terms of reportage and independence (I gotta tell ya, though, that the San Jose Mercury News is one of the truly independent papers).

Hold onto your hats!

It turns out another Dubai company already provides security to the US Navy and at twelve US ports. It apparently is informed of the movement of our ships, and provides the security barriers at naval installations.

On a cold day...

like today in Santa Barbara (there's snow on the Santa Ynez Mountains, just three hundred yards from my deck!), and I'm delaying my almost-daily run to await a bit of warming, I inevitably find my way to this site, which even on a sunny day is fun. Check it out, including the ever-better Search function. (I put in Kafka and learned a lot about "The Prisoner," saving myself the price of rental of the DVD.)

We have met the enemy and he is us

Or, to put Pogo's quote another way, and the NYT did in a recent editorial commenting on Bush's imprisonment without trial of innocents at Gitmo, "Now America is becoming the thing they sought to end."

Bush, the softie

Ya gotta admit, Busy does give us a lot of humorous takes.

Has it come to this?

A music festival in Germany has refused a performance by a leading rock group because one of their songs, "God is a Pop Star," might be offensive.

The man is a monster

I'm not talking about this man, an injured (check out the extent of his injuries here) veteran from my hometown in Arizona. I'm talking about the man who sent him to war: George Bush.

I can't believe, it; simply can't believe it

A new rationale (rationalization) for our troops' continued occupation of Iraq, presented without comment by CBS talking-head, Bob Schieffer (what else would you expect from that blockhead): Our troops are needed to keep the peace between Sunnis and Shiites, especially the armed militias of each, because neither group trusts the other. So there you go, we've morphed into guardians of Iraq's peace--from Iraqis.

The sum of all fears

A few days after Bush decides to peddle nuclear technology to India, France decides to sell some to Libya. That's Libya, spelled Muammar Qadhafi, until a year or so ago an inveterate international terrorist. And BTW, France has much better technology to sell than the US does. Its reactors account for a large percentage of their power and are more modern than ours by far.

So--off we go, into a new nuclear race, this one pretending to be for "peaceful purposes." What madness!

Oscars, Iraq-style

Riverbend, from Baghdad, awards "Oscars" for roles played by various actors in current events. She's a serious blogger, revealing in this post a sense of humor, cynical, but funny.

Mortal fear

That, and only that, can explain AP's rushing out a "clarification" of its earlier story that Bush was shown in a videoconference to have been told before Katrina's landfall that the New Orleans levees might be "breached." Not so, AP "clarified." Bush was only told that the levees might be "overrun."

Family ties

You gotta read this, but I'll summarize. A group of Iraqi women tried to get visas to enter the US, at the behest of activist organization Code Pink, to tell their stories about the deaths of their families, innocent Iraqis shot by US troops during the invasion/occupation. However, the American consulate refused them visas on the ground that they hadn't sufficiently demonstrated that they'd return to Iraq on expiration of the visas. The stated reason for the denial: Absence of family ties in Iraq.

Okay, here goes: My first out-on-a-limb analysis

Heretofore, I've relied on others' news accounts and opinions about events before I've ventured my own, citing others' of course, as I adopted them. But this time I'm venturing my own opinion without backup, and will await the learned press and pundits' reaction.

The India deal is a tragedy for the American worker. Put aside the nuclear thing--that's already been condemned by those who seek true disarmament, and rightfully so. I'm talking about this "opening of markets, thawing the Cold War" nonsense. Here's what it really means: American corporations will gain a new huge expanse of consumers for their goods, while they pay dirt wages to produce those goods, wages set by the low-level margins that are prevalent in the Third World. The "sucking sound" of American jobs that Ross Perot talked about twenty years ago will become a tornado, a devastating drain of jobs out of America, while American corporations, with their powerful brand-names will profit mightily from this new horde of consumers.

The India deal is nothing but a payoff to giant American companies, a spit in the face of American workers, with Bush saying we shouldn't fear competition, meaning, of course, that the corporations won't fear it because they'll reduce wages to meet it. But the American worker with no health care, a huge mortgage and credit-card debt, and kids to educate? Is he/she supposed to compete with a worker in India/Korea/Malasia/Singapore who's happy to earn the equivalent of $2.00 an hour?

Yes, says Bush. Let the American worker eat cake.

You heard it here first. The India deal is the most outrageous insult to our economic system--trashing our wage-earners in favor of big business--since the days of the robber barons.