A bad week

Let's see: Since last week, we've learned that the FBI has overstepped the limits of the (illegal) secret surveillance program, the President is sending 4800 more troops to Iraq, the scandal about insufficient treatment of war veterans is spreading beyond Walter Reed hospital, and the Libby conviction continues to reverberate around the capital. What else can go wrong? Another question: Who on Earth still supports this administration?

Mayans Rule!

To be sure, a sensible religious rite. But it's an even better PR stunt. Why didn't we lefties think of it?

Time out

I'm headed out of town for a few days and will probably not be posting to this blog for a while. But as a parting shot on the status of Iraq, I'll say this: What a mess.

Another reason not to watch network television

The tail is wagging the dog, or the lunatics are running the asylum, or something like that.

Wombat rocks!

A brief message (video) from a knowledgeable dude.

The Libby jury: Hung or hung up?

As the Libby jury deliberates for the umpteenth day (seems like it, anyway), I wonder if it's because they're hung--unable to reach a unanimous decision--or they're still in the process of evaluating the evidence and the law. After ten-plus days, one would think the former, because as complicated as the defense sought to make the trial, the issue of Libby's lying vel non about the source of his information about Valerie Plame seems clear-cut. Either he was deliberately deceiving the FBI and grand jury about when/how he learned about Plame, or he was simply "mis-remembering" his source. This is not a multi-person, multi-event crime, but just one man's actions, with a simple premise, both legal and factual.

It occurred to me this morning, as I was searching for news of the status of the jury's deliberations, that the reason it wasn't readily available in the headlines of the day is that the verdict isn't really very important as a legal matter. Everybody probably believes Scooter fibbed to cover up his boss's avid wish to tarnish Joe Wilson, so a jury's agreement isn't much news, nor would its inability to agree be newsworthy, really. The fact of Cheney's immersion in the leaking/smearing process is out--and everybody's yawning over it.

But there is another facet to the story. If Libby is convicted of several counts, he could face a long prison sentence. Not that he'd be sentenced to a long term, but he'd face it, no doubt. Given that prospect, he might be offered--by Fitzgerald or by the trial judge--a less harsh sentence if he'd recant on his fiction and tell the truth about Cheney's involvement, in detail, in not just the Plame matter, but in the fabrication of the Niger/Yellowcake evidence and the inclusion of famous 18-word reference to it in Bush's speech to Congress. Such revelations could very well trigger a Congressional inquiry (leading to impeachment, maybe). To me, that's what's interesting about the Libby trial's outcome: the prospect of creation of mini-John Dean, testifying truthfully about his boss's sustained, deliberate illegality. A great way for this administration to limp to conclusion, and a guarantee that the neocons are driven from power.

The Ikea Idea--good, bad, or both.

When I was last in Tucson visiting my family, my daughter and granddaughter and I spent a day in an Ikea store. Not the entire day inside the store, but a good three hours. (The rest of the day was spent in the three-hour round trip to Chandler, AZ, where the store was located.) I'd heard of Ikea, of course, but there isn't one near my home in SB, and so this was my first Ikea experience.

We got out of the store relatively unscathed, monetarily, but I gotta tell ya, I now understand why the place is such a money pit: It's attractive in both wares and warehouse; the stylishness of everything is truly remarkable; and the prices in many cases are incredibly low. Literally, incredibly so. I found myself checking the pricetags often, unable to believe that a desk or chest of drawers--attractive in design and of apparent fine quality--could be under $150! And then there's that undeniable aura of energy and competence that is derived, I believe, from the Swedish-ish culture of the place.

I didn't blog about that day because I've been so immersed in Bush/Cheney crud these many months, but I'm trying to wrest myself from that constant source of negativity--and so, the Ikea Idea occurred to me, triggered, I might add, by this humorous take on the subject.

Enjoy.

Ya gotta admit

he's good. He's really good.

I might as well pass on this rumor

since it's bound to fill the blogs tomorrow.

Jose Padilla lives

Barely.

Democracy?

Our troops in Iraq are search-and-destroying journalists?

I admit I'm an obsessive/compulsive

but I"ve never sent myself an email.

Paradox

Because of the conflict many of my fellow peace-marchers and I have over the "all-volunteer" military that we've sent off to foreign lands, we've stopped chanting,"Support the troops, bring them home." I mean, as this article points out, when it comes to the nature of those who're fighting over there, this isn't VietNam and our troops aren't victims. Hard to say it, but true.

Outrage cubed

Okay, first they craft a financial system (tax policy, trade policy, monetary policy, anti-union efforts) that favors the rich and widens the gap between rich and poor. Next, the impact of this disparity is felt most acutely in small-town America, where financial prospects are bleakest for the young. Then they offer financial incentives to the kids from these towns, incentives too grand to resist, so that the Army ends up with an inordinate percentage of its soldiers from towns with fewer than five thousand souls. Then, having started a war and given the soldiers insufficient equipment to fight it, they don't deliver the remains of those killed in action to the hometown of the soldier because it doesn't have a major airport, so that the family must travel miles to pick up and transport the body to its final resting place. Ya know, at some point I'd get really pissed off if I was one of those families.

Unwitting supporters of Bush/Cheney

This article by George Monbiot in The Guardian says it so well, I'll add only this observation. Since I've become a somewhat recognizeable antiwar person locally (my ubiquitous sign gives me away), I've been accosted by these nutcases many times, most recently at an art gallery opening. The fellow sidled up to me and hissed into my left ear, "You know about the third tower, right?" When I said, "Uh?" he went on. And on and on, whispering "facts" (a typical one: "Jet fuel is basically kerosene, and can't possibly burn hot enough to melt steel girders") into my ear, moving to my left as I tried to turn toward him. I finally faced him and said, "Interesting."

Unlike Monbiot, I've learned not to engage these oddballs. I don't humor them, but I don't argue with them either. I say, simply, "Interesting," and move on. Maybe, I reason, they'll thereby lose interest and restrict their rants to each other.

I do have this query, however: How crazy do you have to be--how deeply paranoid about government, how downright delusional about the reality of events and human behavior--must one be to foster these conspiracy theories? I mean, I can understand beliefs in burning bushes (no pun intended), immaculate conception, even Roswell (although that's a stretch for me). These have some spiritual basis or factual possibility. But a mass murder and a mass coverup like 9/11? All I've got to say is, There are crazies on all sides of us--and each of them has one vote. So, guys and gals, vote early and often.

An fitting epitaph

for this fellow might be, "Rot in hell."

Why I love the internet

Yesterday, as I was surfing the net among my usual sites--iCasualities.org, Buzzflash, you know the drill--I was eating an avocado. I've found the best avocados in the world (I have a fetish for the fruit, having lived here in avocadoland for ten years, and being a regular at the annual festival in Carpinteria). These "best" avocados are sold by a particular vendor at the SB farmers' market (he only attends two a week, the Saturday market on Cota Street and the Tuesday market on State). His avocados are of the Haas variety, but, says the Latino vendor, they come from a particular type of tree that has been transplanted from Mexico. The fruit is almost spherical, has a slightly wrinkly deep-black skin and is heavier than other avocados. (To my dismay, the vendor told me the season for this type was ending soon.)
So anyway--I was surfiing the net about Iraq when it occurred to me to wonder whether there was a significant caloric or nutritional difference among the varying types of avocados. I know, by experience, that some are watery, some have a stringy quality, and none are as rich and heavy and creamy as my favorites.
So--I clicked on Google, entered "avocado calories" and searched for about five minutes. Among the hundreds of available, relevant sites I learned that indeed there did seem to be a difference in calories as well as fat content among avocado types, and that it appeared that Haas was the highest in both calories and fat. I couldn't find the values for my particular vendor's version (his name's Manuel and he lives in Santa Paula), but oh well.
Love that internet, except of course as an inveterate calorie-counter this was not good news. I suppose, however, I should at least be grateful that it's the end of Manuel's trees' harvesting season.

Gotta havit

What a hoot! A fake ad for a fake drug for a fake disease. Google it to see how it's catching on.

Power to the people

I attended the student "strike" and peace demonstration out at UCSB campus on Thursday afternoon. The group (there were about 500 kids at the height of the event, about 200 at the end) assembled for speeches and chants on campus, then marched in an energized throng out the main gate and down both the incoming and outgoing lanes of California highway 217, shutting down the principal entrance to the university for more than two hours. It was quite a rally--beautiful day, wonderful kids. Let's hope it ignites something, something missing so far on campuses: genuine loathing for our nation's foreign policies.

(Here's a photo, with my protest sign--illegible because of distance from the camera--located just to the left and down from the speed-limit sign. Here's a more detailed account of the event from the SB Independent.)

BTW--A letter I wrote to the Independent was published in its 2/15 issue, and if it appears online, remind me to post a link to it here.)

Keystone spies

A background Newsweek article on the "Qud force" that Bush is blaming for Iran's intrusion into Iraq points out two oddities about the ordnance that was displayed, allegedly implicating Iran as the source of its manufacture: (1) The identifying language on the projectiles was in English, not Farsi; and (2) the date of manufacture showed the month first, followed by day and year, as done in American military script.

Can't these idiots who plant false claims to justfiy US invasion get anything right?

The "surge" debate in the House

I watched an hour or so of the ongoing debate in the House about the Democrat-sponsored "non-binding" resolution to disapprove of Bush's escalation of the Iraq war/occupation. Two observations:
(1) My congressperson, Lois Capps, happened to be at the podium for her five minutes and, to me, gave a creditable--more than creditable in substance, a bit weak in delivery--speech about the state of affairs in Iraq, and in this nation. I felt proud that she was my voice in Congress, even though she's nowhere near as radical in her views as I. She's good people, Lois Capps is.
(2) The Republicans, alternating speeches with the Democrats, were absolutely nuts. Speaker after speaker kept invoking "the war on terr'r," widening the debate to one of a global nature, calling any hesitation to support Bush's escalation as a capitulation to "those who would kill us" and "the extremist radical forces of Islam."
My reaction to the latter: I thought they were joking, that they'd drunk Kool-Aid or toked something. Their speeches sounded like lunacy, truly drug-driven.
But later this evening, on the Internet, I found out I was wrong. No lunacy, no Kool-Aid was at work. They were just following orders.

Forty years too soon

Damn--I want to go back to Harvard now, now that it's found a soul.
(Within the cited article, also follow the link to this piece about its new president.)

The Second Coming

Check out this incisive essay about our pundits' repeated use of lines from Yeats' poem. It does indeed feel like it must have felt to Europeans in 1919, when devastation and turmoil were everywhere, when the world seemed to be going mad.

Ain't war grand?

This is the account of the attack that injured this baby. Speaking as a new grandfather, I gotta tell ya, it's enough to send me to the barricates.
"PHOTO: A seven-month-old baby girl lies wounded in a hospital, after a U.S. air
strike which targeted two suspected foreign fighter safe houses, in Falluja, 50
km (30 miles) west of Baghdad, February 8, 2007. U.S. forces said they killed 13
insurgents in the air strike on two suspected foreign fighter safe houses near
the town of Ameriya, near the western city of Falluja. Ahmed al-Ami, a doctor in
the Falluja hospital, said more than 30 bodies, including those of seven
children, were brought in. Picture taken February, 8, 2007."

You heard it here first

Anna Nicole Smith is still dead.

It was too good to be true

It looks like Libby's lawyers aren't going to call Cheney as a witness after all. Damn. I was sooo looking forward to his having to answer questions under oath and under cross-examination by Fitzgerald, who's known to be a no-nonsense bulldog who keeps to the point, keeps asking the same question until he gets an answer, a real answer. He could have helped us learn how Cheney got the authority of "declassify" (that is, leak) the Valerie Plame information (the answer, of course, is that he had to have spoken to Bush about it, and we would have heard the content of that discussion); to whom Cheney then turned to effect the leaks (there were others besides Libby who were apparently tasked with this); and finally--to me most importantly--we would have learned what Bush actually did to effectuate his own "investigation" of the leaks. Recall, Bush said he was going to track down the leaker and if he/she was found, fire him/her/them. In other words, we could have had a ball.

But my trial-lawyer/politico instincts told me all the while that the listing of Cheney as a witness was a feint, not a reality. Not only is Libby (and by extension his lawyers) too much of a loyal soldier to expose the Bush administration to such scrutiny, but--as the cited article says--Cheney's appearance and evidence would probably have hurt Libby's defense more than helped it.

A wise choice by Libby's defense team, but Damn, damn, damn.

A "ragtagonist" responds

In last Thursday’s SB Independent, an essay appeared by a local psychologist who had witnessed our weekly peace march while having coffee at a cafe on State Street. I wrote the following letter in response.

To the editor:

I’m one of the “small ragtag band of war protesters” on State Street that Dr. Seabaugh wrote about in the February 1, 2007, Independent. (“Long Time Passing,” p. 46) I’d like to respond—not, however, addressing—and thus dignifying—his critical commentary on our age, our appearance and attire.

Dr. Seabaugh notes the absence in the streets of war-protesting Boomers. He wonders, “Where is everybody?” He points out that both Boomers and their progeny, “Echo Boomers,” have become inordinately attached to acquiring goods, as opposed to aspiring toward the good, a fact that may be statistically accurate. No mystery there: If Boomer parents have become predominately materialistic, their kids will mirror that trait.

But his question, “What happened to us?” poses an interesting question, one he doesn’t answer. Instead he suggests that new life-lengthening drugs may someday drive older Americans to the streets because they may actually live so long that they’ll have to endure the consequences of today’s government-gone-mad. That prospect, however, misses the point. He asked about today: What has happened to "us" today, to make "us" so lethargic, so distracted, so cynical, as no longer to protest the ghastly course the Bush administration has set for our nation.

This question, to be answered honestly, depends on what a fair definition of "us" is. Some of “us” do indeed march on Saturday—and have done so for 200 consecutive Saturdays since before the invasion of Iraq; some of “us” spend Sundays displaying 3,000 crosses at Arlington West; some of “us” stand weekly in silent vigil at street corners in Carpinteria and Santa Barbara; some of “us” gather at periodic rallies—rain or shine—to rail against Bush administration policies. And many more of “us” write letters, make phonecalls, seek redress from our representatives.

And so the “us” Dr. Seabaugh must be referring to is the “us” who sit idly by and muse about the state of things, but do nothing about them. If that includes Dr. Seabaugh, only he can answer, and only for himself. As for many others of “us,” I quote John Lennon’s “Imagine,” a song we often sing as we march up and down State Street on Saturdays: “I hope someday you’ll join us.”

A possible cover for my novel, Gaviota

I'm fooling around with my digital camera, trying to create an image that captures "Gaviota," which is a fifty-mile stretch of coastline between Santa Barbara and Point Conception to the north. "Gaviota" is a Spanish word for seagull, and I managed to capture this image at sunrise a few days ago. What do you think?

One of my favorite scenes in moviedom

More hearts and minds

We're probably not going to win many with incidents like this:

"BAGHDAD - Police and Iraqiya state television said U.S. forces wounded
Suhad Shakir, an anchor working for Iraqiya, when they fired on her car near the
Foreign Ministry in central Baghdad. The U.S. military said it was checking the
report."

Crunching the numbers

It turns out the "surge" will be a "splurge." And this, BTW, doesn't count the extra billions that Bush intends to spend on cleanup and rebuilding of the areas of Baghdad that will be demolished by the forces he's unleashing.

When will the Congress stand up to its Constitutional responsibility to stop this madness?

Why don't you say what you really mean?

This essay, which succinctly captures the current straits our nation is in in the Middle East, minces no words. Gems like:

"The futility of the Iraq War also is contributing to professional cynicism. Some intelligence support personnel are volunteering for Iraq duty not because they think they can help win the war but because the hazard pay is high and life in the protected Green Zone is relatively safe and easy."

and

"Normally, winning the hearts and minds of a target population requires a commitment to move among the people and work on public action projects, from building roads to improving the judicial system. But all that requires some measure of political goodwill and personal trust.
Given the nearly four years of U.S. occupation and the devastation that Iraq has suffered, not even the most talented American counterinsurgency specialists can expect to overcome the hatred swelling among large segments of Iraqi society."

The writer concludes that, as he did with Iraq, "the decider" has already determined to attack Iran, likely in conjunction with an Israeli strike on its nuclear-development sites. He ticks off the "drumbeats" that sound ominously like those we heard before the Iraq invasion.

Could it be? I still can't bring myself to believe it. Can you?

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.