Milton Friedman isn't an idiot, he's an evil force

This bigheaded jerkoff is credited, in a PBS special this evening, with everything from Chile's "economic recovery" to the "all-voluteer" army in the US. What bullshit. Less than two decades after his views became Reagan's mantra, we see ruination of watersheds and rain forests, exploitation of labor, violent reactions in third-world nations, growing disparity between rich and poor, war without end because of the lack (by the US populace) of any sense of involvement. And on and on. Friedman's ideas of "market forces" and "absence of governmental involvement in economics"--the University of Chicago school of capitalist exploitation--will be the ruin of our civilization, a fact--a fact, not a theory Mr. Freidman--that is playing out on our planet every day.

What surprises me, really, is how he's still revered now that we've seen what his "theories" have wrought. As just the easiest example, consider California's "energy crisis" of five years ago, brought on by deregulation of the electrical grid, exploited by Enron. "Market forces" unleashed--and ruinous.

Update: I'm not alone in thinking this. Check out this essay just published on CommonDreams.

"Peace Train"

Before we attack Iran, the American public may want to watch this video of photos from its capital, Tehran. It might stay our politicians' hands if they realize that we're aware that it's a real place, with beautiful vistas and real people.

Between the lines

In my soon-to-be published novel, my protagonist at one point voices his creator's (that's me) suspicion of--antipathy toward--executive power. He, like me, doesn't know where that sentiment comes from. An innate disdain for authority or something.

Well, when I read this NYT article about Bush's latest action, placing a political appointee within each executive agency to filter the agency's regulations through a process that can only be called pro-business, I had that immediate rush of distrust. And I think from the tenor of the article, my sense is correct. This is a direct slap in the face of Congress, which doesn't control executive agencies directly. It will make the agencies beholden to the executive's biases, without restraint.

Like my protagonist, I don't care if this new order benefits Bush or subsequent Democratic administrations. The accretion of governmental power in the executive branch--by whomever controlled--is dangerous.

Just you wait...

we're gonna start hearing "body counts" of insurgents and terrorists under Bush's surge. Oh, it will be disguised or guarded, but numbers of dead "enemies" in various encounters will start to enter the official and, accordingly, the MSM, reports.

Too late: Here's one.

The NYT's new game

tracking the words Bush has used in his SOTU speeches. Give it a try, it's fun. (Hint: search for "climate change".)

The NBA and the USA

This is a letter I wrote to the editor of the SB News-Press. Don't know if it will be published.

To the editor:

NBA coaches make big bucks because they anticipate the endgame. What’s The Worst, The Best, and The Most Likely outcome?

Applying that discipline to Iraq, The Worst is a twenty-point loss: Iraq becomes a “breeding ground for terrorists,” a threat to the Western World. The Best is a fourth-period win: Iraq becomes a “shining star of democracy,” dutifully pumping oil into Western corporate coffers. The Most Likely is a squeaker: A shakily independent Iraq that seeks to maximize oil profits while resenting Western domination.

It’s time to get real—as the Bush administration has not—and consider The Most Likely. How do we get there?

Do we throw more troops into the violence, to kill more Iraqis? No way. When you’re down by two with twelve seconds left, you don’t commit a flagrant foul. A “troop surge” will confirm America’s place as an outlaw occupier, as oppressive as the Soviets in Hungary, the Nazis in Warsaw.

Or do we play for a squeaker, by withdrawing our troops immediately, placing sufficient money—billions less than it takes to continue the occupation—in the hands of the “duly elected” government of Iraq as reparations for the massive damage we’ve done to their nation? We would thereby deflate the claims that we invaded to take control of Iraq’s strategic location and resources, while simultaneously quieting the constant drumbeat of hatred of America.

Isn’t it time we played for The Most Likely, to salvage Iraq—and America?

Janet Leigh, RIP

Sometimes when you Google, you learn more than you want to know.
Today/tonight, Turner Classic Movies is playing a series of Janet Leigh movies. I'm about to watch "The Manchurian Candidate," having just watched "The Naked Spur." (I'm doing this while avoiding a trip downtown to freeze and get drenched waiting to get into one of the several movies that are being offered by the Santa Barbara International Film Festival, a festival I dutifully miss every year.)
So, anyway, at the end of "The Naked Spur" I Googled Janet--she was so gorgeous, how could I not?--because I wanted to know if she was still alive and, if so, if I could thank her for those wonderful roles, including of course "Psycho" and "Touch of Evil."
Well, it's too late to thank her, except hereby. So, Janet Leigh, thanks.

And the result of "the Google"? A Wikipedia entry that discloses this:

"She died at her home after suffering cardiopulmonary arrest due to dilated cardiomyopathy at age 77. Her family was at her side. She also suffered from vasculitis and peripheral neuropathy, which caused her right hand to become gangrenous."

Ugh.

As for me, let me die anonymously, without a public listing of my last ailments.

A question--not about Bush, but about bushes and pigs and things

Off the shore of SB, on the Channel Islands, various authorities have been trying to cleanse the islands of "unnatural conditions." Certain plants have been eradicated, a few types of animals (wild pigs, small foxes) and so forth have been killed off--all in the name of restoring the islands to their condition before man brought these "unnatural" species to their shores. Indeed, so unique are these islands that apparently they once were home to a miniature mammoth, found nowhere else on the planet.

I am conflicted by these actions. I mean, ya gotta feel sorry for the pigs and foxes and things. They didn't get to the islands on their own, maybe even didn't want to go in the first place. And besides, isn't man's intrusion into the scheme of things part of the evolutionary stream? I mean, apparently man--a much more primitive version, maybe--killed off entire strains of giant marsupials in Australia, centuries before the Sierra Club could protest; and modern man surely has changed virtually every seashore, the courses of rivers, as well as the habitat and habits of countless plants and animals already. If we want to restore America, for example, to "natural conditions," it seems to me, we'd better vacate Manhattan and Santa Barbara, for example, and let the Indians--or, for that matter, whatever species was there before the Indians--take back over.

I understand the desire to undo damage we humans have done to the planet, and I'm not against trying to fix that. But the flora and fauna on offshore islands? What harm is it--what difference does it make--if they bloom free now in 2007 even if, in 1887 they weren't islanders? The travels of humans--surely part of history--landed them there and there, it seems to me, they should live out their lives until some other force removes them.

Your take?

Enough with the Slovak jokes

They're no dummies.

Somewhere out in the universe

there's got to be a god or an alien being who's looking at this planet, with its abundant sources of energy--wind, sun, tides, geothermal--and laughing his or her or its ass (or whatever) off. Or crying for the Mexicans.

Whaddup?

The U.S. Navy reports three deaths. Besides being weeks and months old, don't these reports strike you as odd? Two are women, one only 23, dying "of natural causes" on a ship? There's a story here, smells like.

Remember the Maine!

I took a ten-day trip to Maine last summer. Beautiful state--in the summer. And this winter, it's proving to be beautiful too.

Bump? I don't see no bump.

Looks like Bush didn't get a bump, not even a tiny one, from his SOTU. No pothole (he was already in a deep one), but no bump.

The trial of Richard Cheney

Fitzgerald probably won't make it, but in the trial of Scooter Libby he's getting awfully close to proving Cheney's complicity in obstruction of justice by orchestrating "talking points" about the Valerie Plame controversy. Recall, that's where Watergate got Haldeman and Ehrlichman in trouble, when they began "sandpapering" witnesses who'd been subpoenaed to the grand jury.

Stay stay tuned.

Testing

I'm trying out Google Docs & Spreadsheets, which has many of the features of a word-processing program and allows storage of the document online as well as online editing and posting of the document to my blog. Let's see if I can manage it.

Hurrah!

Never a doubt

that this is why we went to war in Iraq.

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

the Senate today couldn't muster the necessary votes to approve a straightforward law, which the House previously passed, to increase the minimum wage. The Republican minority in the Senate wants to tie to the bill various tax breaks for small business, whereas the Democrats oppose such linkage. The result is, for the time being at least, no minimum wage law will reach Bush's desk--forcing him to veto it or not--which is of course the real reason Republicans oppose it.

Does all this sound familiar? Do you smell change in the air? I sure don't.

Who's on first?

According to this stirring account by Robert Fisk (a true journalistic hero, BTW) from Beirut, the vast numbers of rioting people--kids, mainly--in that city is a mismash of loyalties, religions, grudges, politics. I can't tell who's doing what to whom, or for what reason, but I do get this: The strike and riot seem to be an overflow from the sectarian violence in Iraq, coupled with the aftermath of Israel's (U.S.-approved) invasion of Lebanon last summer.

Thanks, Bush.

It takes a Brit

to speak the truth with such eloquence.

Impeach Cheney first

As Justin Raimondo makes clear, the Scooter Libby trial is really a trial of Dick Cheney, for his manipulation of prewar intelligence to gin up the case for invasion of Iraq. As a result, it's possible we may finally learn how the "uranium from Africa" language found its way into Bush's prewar speech, even after it had been deleted, at CIA's instance, from a previous Bush speech. That revelation--and it's certain the source of the language was Cheney--could well lead to a broader Congressional investigation of "who lied us to war?" And that investigation could lay the blame directly on Dick Cheney and his neocon minions.

It's long been obvious that most Democrats in Congress do not want to "waste political capital" on impeach-Bush hearings given the small amount of time remaining in his term, for one thing. But large segments of the voting public might, upon learning of Cheney's role in prewar lies, want the latter's pound of flesh--anything to settle their stomachs. This might well lead to Cheney's resignation "for health reasons" and the installation of a new Veep in the months before Bush's term is over, a likelihood because (1) it might give that new office-holder a leg up on a run for the White House in 2008; and (2) because installation of a new Vice President would remove the prospect of a President Pelosi, should anything happen to Bush.

How likely is all of this? Stay tuned. To quote Betty Davis, "Fasten your seatbelts. It's going to be a bumpy night."

Don't say I never did you no favors

because I've now turned you on to this site, that features fine writing about matters political, most recently this brilliant essay by this brilliant man.

Shoot first and ask questions later?

Five G.I.'s died when fired on by Iraqis who were dressed in Iraqi military uniforms and driving a vehicle that appeared to be a diplomatic car, so that the U.S. soldiers might have dropped their guard, mistaking its occupants for American dignitaries. As a result, real diplomatic cars are now suspect, so don't be surprised if our troops kill a few of our own statesmen in the coming weeks.

Questions: How do you fight such an enemy? How can you blame our troops for being trigger-happy? How do you train our soldiers, or Iraqi soldiers, to avoid such attacks, while still following orders to patrol hostile neighborhoods? How do Iraqis avoid even the slightest appearance of insurgency, when any move--speeding toward or avoiding a roadblock because it might be kidnappers; driving too fast; driving too slow; not following U.S. soldiers' commands (in English) instantly; etc.--could lead to being shot by our troops?

This quagmire isn't just Bush's. It's an ugly mess for our troops, the Iraqi civilians and army and police. It's our second-worst nightmare, second only to the dreaded "ground war in Asia"--and it's catching up fast.

Death wish

Bush must have one. Really. Among his proposals, to be presented in his State of the Union address next week, is a "dead on arrival" plan to tax some employees (middle class ones) on a portion of their health insurance benefits, to use those tax revenues to make up for tax deductions to be granted to those who pay insurance premiums out of their own pocket. (He's also going to address the "immigration issue"--the one issue he may find acceptable to the Democratic congress, but which will piss off his "base" completely.)

The health-insurance plan is so insidious it's hard to capture in words. Imagine an employee whose employer-paid plan costs more than a certain government-approved amount, and hence the excess becomes taxable income to the employee. The employee then not only ends up paying federal income tax on money that never comes to him in cash, but hopefully not in benefits either, since any sound-minded person wants not to have health problems, seeks not to incur health costs. Furthermore, Bush's plan will cause a race to the bottom in employer health plans, with employees now joining employers in seeking cheaper, and hence less extensive, plans. The result will be less coverage for employees who have health benefits on the job; while subsidizing those who have no insurance by allowing a tax deduction for their payments. But the latter, recall, would have to have significant enough income to benefit from such a deduction--and who would those be? Surely not the poor, since they hardly pay any income tax in any event. All that would happen is that some middle-class workers would pay for others' benefits.

Now there's a "compassionate conservative" for you.

My picks for president, 2008

Some time ago, I opted for Gore/Spitzer. It's still a good choice, but my first prize now goes to Jimmy Carter and anybody.

"We don't talk to evil"

Let's see if this item makes into the MSM: Larry Wilkerson's--you remember him, Colin Powell's deputy at State--statement to the BBC that Iran sent to the US shortly after our invasion of Iraq, in which Iraq proposed resolution of most of the disputed matters between the US and Iran. Apparently the letter was thought legitimate by Powell, who forwarded it to Cheney, who put the kibosh on it.

Now, Wilkerson's been "out of the closet" for some time, but Powell's still hiding behind the skirts of save-facedness. If Powell confirms this account, we've got proof that the present administration in the White House has no interest in making peace in the Middle East--in fact, has a stake in formenting continuing turmoil--which accounts for all of their behavior in the region over the last six years.

Colonialism redux

If you Google "ink blot strategy" you get several cites to Bush's most recent "plan" for Iraq, of "winning" an area of Baghdad and then keeping control of it while flooding it with money and jobs and good will--a program that was used by the British, with marginal success, in defeating insurgencies in its colonies.
You'll also find this article, from nine months ago, that described Bush's then-new plan for Iraq. Sound familiar?

I love when this happens

In a straw poll to determine preferred Republican Presidential candidates, taken of Republican voters in McCain's hometown of Phoenix, Arizona, McCain finishes fourth, behind Mitt Romney (whoever that is), Duncan Hunter (ditto) and Newt Gingrich. Apparently, McCain (whom I've heretofore advisedly called a Nazi) is too conservative for the vast majority of those polled.

Now do you know why--besides the weather--I moved to SB from Arizona?

A new "axis of evil"

No longer Bush, Cheney and Rummie. It's Bush, Cheney and Rice.

Melting away

According to this report, the al-Sadr aligned militia will adapt to the "surge" by abandoning their black outfits, hiding their arms and waiting until the Americans decide their effort has succeeded.
Of course--they're no dummies, certainly not as dumb as POTUS.

The Associated Press reports

on der Fuhrer.

I favor a constitutional amendment

to require an intelligence test for voting in presidential elections. Here's why.

A brief, thoughtful essay

about income inequality. Not a tirade, a reflection.

Crybaby

If you're so broken up about it, send the twins.

Come to think of it, I wonder what lever this fellow moved to create the tearing effect? View the terrific video.

Apology?

This is the single line from Bush's speech last night that could be called an apology:

"Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me."

And this is what the MSM is touting as an apology? Imagine trying to get away with that weak statement to the victim after causing a drunk-driving accident, which is, to be charitable to Bush, analagous to what he has wrought in Iraq. The judge would enhance the sentence due to lack of contrition, as should we.

Now, really!

A US Air Force gunship--that's a big mutha transport plane bristling with weapons--has apparently attacked and killed some folks in the nation of Somalia, the rationale for the attack being that among them was a member of al-Qaida. Now, I'm no expert in constitutional law, nor in international law--although I've studied both extensively--but I don't recall learning that our armed forces are permitted to roam the planet, including within the borders of other nations, to kill anyone who's thought to oppose our national interest, even if they're suspected of being militarily opposed.

There's no mention of such authority in this article, except for this sentence near the end of the piece:

"The Bush administration has long claimed the right to launch discrete military attacks in other countries when terrorist targets have been identified."

Has it come to this: that if Bush "claims the right" it's his? Is there any counter-assessment of such a right? Am I missing something?

What do you think?

Is Bush's "surge and splurge" (that's my phrase, BTW, to cover the troop increase in Iraq, coupled with a massive aid campaign to repair the damage the troops cause--which I understand is what Bush will announce in tonight's speech) but a feint to disguise his real purpose: to fight Iran after Iran attacks Israel as well as the US Navy buildup in the Persian Gulf in response to Israel's imminent strike on Iran's nuclear plants? This writer thinks so, and his case is strong.

I admit it, I'm a hypocrite

I oppose the "surge" for all the right reasons: it is illegal and immoral and illegal; it will cause more deaths of humans (US and others'), more wasted US treasure, more antagonism to the US around the world, all with no possibility of "victory" (whatever that means).

But at the same time, I deep-down want Bush to go forward with the escalation over the objections of me and my ilk, because we will then be given the opportunity to call it the Bush/Cheney/McCain doctrine; and when it fails miserably over the next few months, there will be no viable opposition to a landslide election of progressive Democrats to positions of power in Congress and the White House.

It seems like I'm suggesting the use of our youngsters in the armed service as pawns in a greater political spectrum; and my answer is, You Bet I Am. Just like everybody else is, including, most notably, Bush/Cheney/McCain.

Unfair and imbalanced

Faux News has apparently given up on even the semblance of sanity.

If you've got the time

check out this site (I've mentioned it before) for in-depth reporting of what's going on in Iraq. The postings for today (1/7) are exhaustive and range from the mundane listings of killings and such around the country (not just Baghdad); to amazing revelations about our soldiers' conduct (videotaping their executions of innocent Iraqis and then posting the videos on their websites, including, the report says, the video of one US soldier pissing on a dead Iraqi); to the disclosure that a recently-enacted federal law requires that civilian contractors in Iraq (and elsewhere) who're involved in military settings are no longer immune from prosecution for crimes, but are to be subject to US military law; to the report (about which I blogged earlier) that the puppet-masters in Iraq are about to close a deal that will allow their major oil companies to have access to Iraq's oil resources on an inordinately favorable basis.

The site (just for this one day) has extensive additional articles, so you've got to be an Iraq-war junkie like me to keep on scrolling. Otherwise your head will explode.

Makes you wonder...

The daily poll of Americans' approval of Bush's presidency that's conducted by Rasmussen showed a distinct mini-bounce in Bush's favor (from the high 30's to the mid-40's) just after January 1. (The figure has now declined to 40%.) Rasmussen, as well as the coincidence, suggested this bounce was due to the execution of Saddam Hussein.

Is it possible Americans (even a small percentage of them) think like that? Don't you wish Sweden or Canada had a better climate (and would accept American refugees?)

Capitol punishment

Not a misspelling--I just wanted to see if you were awake. Actually, in a previous post I declared my opposition to capital punishment in all cases. But if I were to be persuaded to allow and exception, here it is.

A Whistleblower's tale

The soldier who revealed the Abu Ghraib photos tells his story here. Now I know why there are so few revelations about military atrocities from inside. Only one My Lai? C'mon.

Danger Zone

The latest CBS poll has Bush's approval rating at 30%, the lowest ever for any poll. Now I agree that CBS's numbers are usually lower than others', but at some point the concensus may hit 27% or so, and it may become time for a coup.

Hearts and minds re-redux

What a teriffic way to start the new year.

"Baghdad – U.S. forces killed the coach of Iraq's basketball team for the disabled in front of his house in the area of al-Mansour, western Baghdad, according to an official in Iraq's Paralympics Committee."

The coach of the disabled basketball team? Are you kidding me?

Reported here: http://www.aswataliraq.info/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=34306&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

Direct, articulate, smart

Plus a bunch of similar adjectives describe the Army lieutenant who's refused to serve in Iraq because of his belief that our invasion and occupation were illegal and unconstitutional. Quite a soldier, this young man. Read his words and/or listen here.

Hanging Saddam Hussein

Of course I am opposed to--am disgusted by, actually--the execution of this dictator, as I am by the execution of any human being (any animal, for that matter), and I continue to wonder why we humans still do it. I'm also not that crazy about "life in prison without possibility of parole," but at least that has the supporting rationale of being necessary to avoid harm to society by removing established recidivist offenders from our midst (without, however, the demeaning feature of deliberate killing).

It is said that "justice" is served by execution, that there's some curative effect of establishing a societal balance by killing a killer. I say that's hooey. Primitive poppycock. It's windowdressing, merely, for retribution--which is itself something so senseless that no animal except the basest human can conceive of it. Are there any animals other than us who engage in retribution? I thought not.

After almost two months,

Riverbend posts on her blog, Baghdad Burning, once again--and she's bitter.

Did I read this right?

"And I encourage you all to go shopping more."

Apparently so. Check out this transcript of Bush's recent news conference about the war in Iraq.

Meanwhile, in Bush's "successful war"

kidnapped girls are traded for dogs.

Tragic farce

This report in the Guardian about the Brits' attack and demolition of the "Serious Crimes Unit" headquarters in Basra is astounding. And these are the folks we're dying for, these are the people we're placing in power?

This entire ugly war has become a sick joke, a gruesome tragedy. We've got to leave that nation to allow its citizens to determine their own fate. And to allow our citizens to heal.

Laughed 'til I couldn't anymore

Here's a healthy dose of Holiday cheer. Video of Borat's visit to the Pima County (Tucson, Arizona) Republican club. Enjoy.

I wish you a Merry Christmas

but as to the New Year--probably not very merry. The numbers--reported by solid governmental sources--are frightening for the future of our children and grandchildren and, like so many problems Bush and his Republicans have gotten us into in the last six years, present an insoluble problem. What have we wrought?

Hopeless, hapless

Here we are, awaiting word from the Listener-in-Chief about how many additional combat troops he's going to launch into the cauldron that is Iraq. The ostensible reason for this is to stem the violence that is caused mainly, these days, by retributive warring between the Shiites and the Sunnis in and around Baghdad. To effect this, the US had hoped to cause the Iraqi Parliament to re-align, so as to isolate al-Sadr's block of members and hence to give the Iraqi army and US troops free rein to wipe out the militias that support al-Sadr (although their previous attempts haven't borne fruit).

But no. Today, the Shiites' grand ayatollah, al-Sistani, said he wouldn't approve such a realignment, effectively ending any such program of violence-suppression. And so, the meaningless dying goes on. Our soldiers are obeying orders, presumably, but the orders have no purpose, no aim, no end in sight. Just killing and dying.

What's in a name?

Here's an article from MediaMatters that ticks off the series of White House phrases that's been adopted by the MSM, particularly CNN, in describing various developments in Iraq and elsewhere, from "cut and run" to "Terrorist Surveillance Program" to "Democrat." I've given up on the airwaves, including PBS, as a news source (except of course Link TV, Pacifica Radio and Democracy Now! and such programs). Right now, for example, the networks are cluttered with stories of Denver's airport and The Donald's battle with Rosie, while in Iraq the killing goes on and on.

I don't get it

Why can't the anti-war faction of the American populace come up with a decent presidential candidate, one who demands immediate withdrawal from Iraq, cessation of obstinate silence on Middle East questions and discourse with other nations (Iran, Syria), and true engagement with the world on issues of fair trade and wealth-sharing? It looks from here like we're going to face a 2008 just like 2004, with no candidate (except Kucinich) speaking out on these issues. And that's after an election in which I thought we'd spoken by ballot that we wanted just such candidates.

Flag etiquette

Talk about form over substance. Talk about absurdity, idiocy, irrelevance...whatever. (Note, at the end of the article, the lady's comment that the flag's mispositioning was "disgraceful." Who are these people?)

What America needs now

is a military coup.

States rights

Here's a listing and brief description of laws that take effect in various states effective January 1, 2007. Quirky, weird in some cases, sensible in others. It surely demonstrates the concept of federalism, anachronistic as it sometimes seems.

I defy you

to read the first paragraph of this article about hogshit and not read the rest of the five-page piece. It's like watching a train wreck, or film of the allies' first encounter with the prisoners at Dachau. Can't stand the sight, can't turn away.

A testing post

This is a test. I repeat: This is only a test. On the previous two posts of mine, when I've clicked on the "Comment" line, the comment box has shown a statement "Banned by Webmaster. Your comments will not be added" and indeed my comments haven't been added when I typed them into the comment box. This post is being added to my blog to see if that problem persists.

If the same thing happens to you when you click the "Comment" line on my blog for any posts, would you email me to that effect?

Interesting reading, eh?

War rules

The Sunday morning talk shows are replete with references to the prospect of adding between 20 and 50 thousand additional combat troops to the mess in Iraq. Other interviewees spoke of the need to deploy more Americans to increase the "training" of Iraqi troops--even though their training is not the issue: their loyalty and reliability is. But there was not a single spokesman for the millions of Americans who want immediate withdrawal of our forces. Why not?

One would think the inclusion of such spokespersons would make for lively discourse, would create meaningful dialogue, would make for good theater. Is it possible the major media are willing to forego these for the sake of keeping this war going, since it's a source of high ratings?

A pause that refreshes

I've been taking a vacation from blogging for a few days, here in Tucson for the holidays. I may do some posting from time to time--there's certainly no shortage of items--but mostly I'm agog about my little granddaughter and her family. Amazing things, granddaughters. Amazing.

Be careful what you ask for

Bush/Cheney/Rove labored long and hard to dupe the American public into equating the war and occupation of Iraq with the "war on terr'r." Well, apparently they succeeded, with the result that now, with the Iraq quagmire ongoing and in fact becoming a losing battle, according to the Iraq Study Group, the public's opinion has changed dramatically: Only 35% believe the US is winning the "war on terr'r," with the same percentage believing the "terrorists" are winning.

Some tough reading

Tell me whether you believe this man's story of his arrest and imprisonment in Iraq. I do. Of course, I'm inclined to believe it, but doesn't it have the ring of truth--or, for that matter. the bracelet and necklace too?

Rays of hope

Contruction of that monster courthouse at Guantanamo that I blogged about some weeks ago has been put on hold. Small miracle.

Another miracle: The end of the "war on terror." Not the war, the phrase.

Pinochet's death

The headline for this story on AOL read, "Infamous Dictator Dies--Thousands Killed Under His Reign," and for an instant I thought Cheney had succumbed.

But seriously folks, considering that Pinochet's death gave rise to "violent clashes" with police in Chile upon the announcement, can you imagine what Iraq will look like during the weeks preceding and after the Iraq government executes Saddam Hussein? For that matter, what about the violence if, fearing such an uprising, the government decides to commute his sentence to life? Talk about quagmire.

Embeds

Among the controversial proposals of the Iraq Study Group's report is that US troops should no longer be lead combat forces, but should embed with the Iraq soldiers in small numbers, as guides and helpers. If you were a US soldier, immersed in a platoon of Iraqis, would you feel safe in light of incidents like this ?

Where's the outrage?

I've been watching the Sunday talk shows about Iraq (I've got to stop doing this, it's both uninformative and frustrating), and I've concluded that the concensus is that Bush will call for a "final surge" of troops, perhaps 20,000 or so, into Baghdad as a last effort to purge the place of violence, after which (after its inevitable failure, that is), he will begin a "gradual withdrawal" of our forces to secure areas in and around Iraq to be available to enfore US interests in the region.

Of course the prediction of our stationing of US troops in strongholds in Iraq has always been a main purpose of the invasion, so that's a no-brainer, as repulsive as it is. But the "surge" of troops? It's being touted not really as a solution, but as political cover for Bush, so that he can say to those who support the McCain militaristic solution that he "did all he could" before quitting.

So--our boys and girls are going to die to provide Bush with political cover? My God, this is the "compassionate conservative"? God help us.

Crunching the numbers

The headline of the latest Zogby poll shows Bush's positives at an all-time low (30%), with the public's sentiment about Congress' performance terrible too. But to me the telling number is found in the last line of the article, where Democratic respondents were asked to rate the Democrats' performance in Congress. Only 24% approved. Doesn't that say something to the newly empowered Democrats in Congress, that business as usual isn't going to cut it?

I guess not.

Believe it or not

Two conflicting stories about an air attack by US forces in Iraq. Question: How would the Americans know what the death toll was, and the identity of those killed, when they flew over the site in helicopters?

What is there about French?

For those of you, who (like me) don't read their language, here's a translation that demonstrates what a fine language it is. (Courtesy, Truthout.org.)

Come Clean By Laurent Joffrin Libération
Thursday 07 December 2006
The strategy of lying is collapsing. Even though he balks at publicly admitting it, even if he wants to maintain a martial front, George W. Bush has backed off. What the commander in chief still suppresses, the men he has charged, designated, promoted have just come clean about: the war in Iraq is a historic failure. A predicted failure, certainly, and a universally condemned war. But the confession of these officials gives this condemnation all its weight, all its power of truth. The American president has vicariously confessed America's mistake.
So the "weapons of mass destruction" really were a decoy; so the military operation really was a strategic folly that led to a quagmire. So the "war against terrorism" has brought about nothing but another war and more terrorism. So the plan for a remodeled Middle East really was just a dangerous pipe-dream born from the over-excited brains of ideologues drunk on military certitudes. So what some of Washington's best friends, admirers of the New World's democracy, had said - well beyond any anti-American circles - is now confirmed by the very mouth of the leaders involved. The proof is in that cynicism - even in international politics - can cost very dearly.
Not that every war is unjust, or every intervention forbidden, or every act of force immoral. Within the framework of international institutions, founded on solid law and realistic political calculations, when requested by an oppressed people that would see the soldiers on that mission as liberators rather than targets, the principle of external intervention remains - or remained - legitimate. By charging head-first into a bloody trap, the American administration also damaged that idea. In their historic dreams, Americans wanted to be the knights errant of freedom. George Bush has defaced that mythology too.

I'm getting pissed off, really pissed off

Look, so far I've treated this Bush-asshole's maladministration as evil, dangerous, demented, but only in a distant and theoretical sense. Bad for the world, bad for the nation, bad for the troops and the budget. But now, with US troops continually creating new enemies of America, Bush's criminal behavior is growing close to home for me. I've got an infant granddaughter, you see, and this asshole is turning her future--the world she'll be living in--into a dangerous, wretched place. And that, boys and girls, makes my blood boil.

What do I do about this? Stay tuned.

Baghdad's burning

So maybe I'm late understanding the meaning of the title of Riverbend's weblog, but now I get it: Like Nero, Bush is fiddling--with study groups and press conferences and congressional machinations and political equivocations--while our soldiers are fighting and dying for some undefined purpose (no decent purpose at all, really) in ghastly numbers.

Lennon, redux, redux

If you're not a John Lennon fan, or if you are a fan--of his music, of his prescience, of his soul--check out this short essay about these inseperable components of the man.

Worse than idiotic

It's cynical, monstrous. The Iraq Study Group recommends that the US reduce its combat role in Iraq, and that it use the leverage of withdrawing its forces and money if the Iraq government doesn't improve security quickly enough to suit us. So, having broken the pottery, we spread the shards around the floor and if the proprietor isn't quick to sweep it up we leave the shop. (The ISG also recommends enlisting the aid of nearby Sunni-majority nations as well as Shiite Iran to help with the process, notwithstanding that Iran doubtless seeks greater influence in Iraq through its dominant Shiite majority, and Sunni nations, including well-armed Saudi Arabia, have threatened to intervene in Iraq if Sunnis are continually murdered by Shiite death squads.)

If I'm Iran, I'm LOL. This report plays directly into Iran's hand. All Iran must do is "play nice" while waiting for the ongoing violence to drive Americans out; and meanwhile, by a thousand cuts, moving into control of Iraq through its empowered Shiite government, all the while watching more of our soldiers die trying to perform "mission impossible." Even al Qaida, not a mirthful bunch, must be giggling.

My plan--immediate and complete withdrawal of all US forces from Iraq, coupled with the bequest of several billions of dollars (say, 20, which is about what we spend there in three months) to Iraq's government to pay for the remaining damage and chaos we've caused--has this saving feature. We demonstrate our bona fides about not wanting empire in the Middle East and we save money and American lives. The Iraqis, and, for that matter, the others in the region can slug it out as they deem appropriate. My bet is that after a while they'll find a way to establish equilibrium--the state that the region was in, right or wrong, before we fucked it up.

FYI

Here's what happened to the "shoe bomber."

More about McCain

As support for my observations about the frightening prospect of a John McCain presidency, I submit this essay. Like me, the writer uses the word "dangerous."

Shrinking the international trade deficit.

Finally, some good news from the Pentagon.

Who are these people?

Okay, I can understand the 18% of Americans who, according to the latest Rasmussen Poll, "strongly approve" Bush's handling of the presidency. Namely, I understand that they're lunatics. But the figure I don't get is the 23% percent of those polled who "somewhat approve." How can one have such an opinion--or, rather, lack of opinion--after all that has gone on in our nation in his six years in office? I mean, is there anybody home in there?

The latest parlor game

Now that the "civil war" vel non debate is over (the "civil war"--affirmative side won, as you know), here's the latest--here's another one--and it's really, really fun.

The Caine Mutiny

I just read a comment to a blog (can't find it now), that likened Bush to Captain Queeg of the Caine, refusing to adjust course in the midst of a typhoon, thereby jeopardizing his ship and its crew. Pelosi was compared to the first mate who finally mutinied, barely averting disaster. I'm not certain about this last, but the Bush-Queeg analogy surely works.

Investigation? We'll see

Here's a report that the Defense Department is investigating the incident that I blogged about a week or so ago, in which (apparently) a couple of US soldiers had videotaped--and posted on YouTube--their taunting of Iraqi children with a waterbottle.

I'll try to maintain followup on this story, but if anyone out there finds anything relevant to either the incident or the investigation, let me know.

The wheels aren't coming off the US government

they're already off, and if you doubt it, check out this story of silliness in our foreign affairs.

Blaming the victim

That's the new parlor game in Washington these days.

McCain revealed

I've long been a McCain-basher, with some special expertise because he was a Senator from my former state, Arizona, and I've followed his career carefully. I contend he's a closet fascist--certainly a militarist with a bent toward government intrusion in citizens' affairs. The mainstream media, I contend, has given McCain a free ride, focusing on his efforts at campaign reform and some other issues where he's said to be a "maverick" and "independent."

Well, turns out I'm not alone in this view.

Your reaction?

"Mission Accomplished" makes it into the Memory Hole. When I watched the video, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry or toss a bomb somewhere, at someone.

Letter to the editor

Here's a letter to the editor of the News-Press that I wrote today. If someone should see its publication, please let me know. (I seldom read that paper.)

To the editor:

Iraq’s leaders want US forces to remain in country, no doubt largely to protect them from the insurgency. However, segments of the parliamentary coalition, including the Shiite Sadr group, want us out of Iraq, and is backed by a fierce militia that Iraq's leaders are unwilling to quell for fear of losing Shiite political support.

Meanwhile, US forces are deployed throughout Sunni-dominated areas of Iraq--Ramadi, Fallujah, etc.—trying to quell that sect’s insurgency. Ostensibly, Sunni insurgents want the US to leave Iraq so they can engage in unrestrained attacks against what they deem a "puppet government." But according to a report by Tom Hayden on The Huffington Post, a delegation of these insurgents is negotiating with US officials to gain its ends--formation of a new government, rescission of decrees against Baathists, amnesty--and wants our troops to remain in Iraq to police these results. As inducements, it's offering permanent US bases in Iraq and access by private companies to Iraqi oil.

It’s plain to see: We're being played the fool, while our forces are under assault from three sides: Sunni insurgents, al-Qaida fighters and an array of private militias. And now, with the escalation of retributive attacks between Sunnis and Shiites, our troops have come under indiscriminate fire, trying to stop sectarian battles.

How do we extricate ourselves from this mess? An AA slogan says it best: "The way to stop drinking is to stop drinking." The way out of Iraq is to get out of Iraq.

Whodathunkit?

Sacramento has a leftist weekly newspaper. Check it out here.

Wanna have some fun?

Listen to these radio clips.

That's gotta smart!

A civil war, my ass. Nothing civil about this.

A day to remember

Not today, Thanksgiving Thursday, but rather Sunday, the day our war in Iraq becomes a longer war than America's involvement in World War Two.

Not a day to give thanks, not at all.

Malachi Ritscher

Rest in peace.

From the tenor of the comments to this article, he already is.

Comic relief

I've been getting a bit too heavy on my blog lately, so I thought I'd lighten it up by linking to these guys. (I'm probably the last kid on the block to turn onto them, but what the hell.) Enjoy.

Vegas, anyone?

I wonder if somewhere in cyberspace there's a site that's taking bets on Bush's decision about our troop level in Iraq, and what the odds presently are on "going big, going long or going home."

Here's my bet: "Going long," which means an immediate infusion of about 20,000 more troops, coupled with announcements about it being a "final surge" or some much more clever Rovian (remember him?) phrase, followed (maybe, maybe) by a phased drawdown of troops over the next several months. This is nothing but "stay the course" with the awful prospect of more US and Iraqi deaths, with an added taste of "as Iraq's troops stand up, we will stand down" flavoring. But given Bush's personality, and the politics of the times (especially with Senator McCain calling for more troops), it seems to be the most likely option.

Any takers?

Ouch!

Poor Bush (II). By nearly three-to-one, his father leads him in approval, according to a recent CNN poll. That's gotta hurt.

Winning their hearts and minds

After viewing this video, I can only ask, What kind of monsters are we sending to Iraq?

I was just thinking...

however implausible it is that a bill of impeachment would be returned against Bush--and I've more or less given up on the prospect--it's possible that if Bush keeps up his craziness, he could trigger it. Certainly if during one of the several imminent Congressional investigations he and/or Cheney acts too highhandedly or are discovered to have engaged in a coverup of some significance, I could see some Democrats calling for impeachment. And with the list of those condemning his handling of the Iraq war growing ever more weighty, I could imagine that if he called up more troops, the American public would demand some way to stop him, and if the threat of impeachment would do it, then perhaps even that.

(BTW, in view of the state of affairs in Iraq, as well as of the military, consider how cynically nuts McCain is, with his call for more troops. He's clearly posturing for the presidential election in 2008, stirring up the Rightwing nutcases at Bush's expense, knowing that if no more troops are sent and Iraq explodes (as it will, no matter what), he can play "I told you so.")

Can you imagine

How difficult it would be to take a stroll in downtown Jakarta today?

Your thoughts?

Two Rasmussen polls of interest:

1. Forty-one percents of Americans believe the nation's best days are yet to come, and about an equal number don't.

2. Sixty-one percent believe American society is generally fair and decent.In each case, note the disparity in outlook between Republicans and Democrats, and between young and old.

Your view?

Somebody, stop the madness!

A huge facility at Gitmo, costing $125 million, to hold the military's "show trials" in? Have we gone nuts?

(I've gotten into a habit of asking rhetorical questions, I realize--see previous post. I'll watch this tendency in the future.)