What I believe...so far

Ideas such as this, speaking of a "unified field" or a "unified consciousness" appeal to me as a sound explanation of what is. They contain a comforting coalescence of mathematics and physics with Buddhist thought and even Jungian psychology. However, I depart from the author's analysis (because I find no imperical basis for it) in its presentation idea that this "field" is "love." Certainly one is free to believe that, or one is free to assume it and act in accordance with it, but I simply don't see anything in my experience or in the author's reasoning that makes it so.

So--I find it plausible that there's an elementary base force at work in all matter and energy that we know of, and that that force is likely not entirely random, but in some measure directed (for example, from organization to entropy). More than that, I know not, except that I can choose to make of that fact whatever I wish. If I wish to call it "love," I may do so, and act accordingly. If I wish to call it "horsefeathers," I may do that, and act accordingly. This, to me, better explains the presence in the universe of people like George Bush or Adolph Hitler, because their existence--and the power they've wielded--are inexplicable if the notion of "love" is imputed to the universal force. These people, and many too many others in human history, have proven to me the absence, not the presence, of any abiding concept of love in the universe.

I told you so

For weeks, I've contended that the Congressional Democrats' tinkering with war-funding legislation, by inserting various withdrawal benchmarks and the like, would eventually backfire, leaving Bush with the assertion that the Democrats are endangering the troops. Indeed, even in the face of a threatened veto, the Democrats are backing down on the pending legislation; and--as I've long argued--if Bush does veto any eventual bill, the Congress will sheepishly send him a bill without strings. Result: Bush will look "strong" and Congress will look like the dweebs they are.

I saw this coming. Why didn't they?

I'm not worried

because after mistakes like this, I'm sure software programs will never take over the art of writing.

(Or maybe I should be worried, in case they do.)

No way, Jose

There are few issues (well, maybe, not so few) where there's a black and a white. But here's one: a Senate bill that permits (doesn't even require) the Social Security Administration to bargain with drug makers over prices.

Who on Earth could vote against that? Well, apparently, enough Republicans to maintain a fillibuster. How mean-spirited, how obviously "bought and paid for" can a politician be?

Once again, Pat Buchanan is right on

I despised him during Watergate (he was an assistant to Nixon), but I gotta tell ya, his columns about the war in Iraq and the evil and corruption of the neocons are written as if by me, except that he's got loads of history, having lived much of it.

This essay about Wolfie is wonderful, all except the part about US cessation of foreign aid. I agree we should be more circumspect with such aid--we could save a couple of billions a year if we discontinued military aid to Israel, for example--but we need to continue to share our abundance with the underdeveloped nations.

But otherwise, I love watching the paleoconservatives (Buchanan's word) chew up the neoconservatives. If this keeps up, whoever gets the Democratic nomination for President will carry every state except those that seceded in 1860, and maybe even Florida. And the Congress will be so heavily Democratic that it may be able to right our ship of state.

Hurrah!

The district court judge in the AIPAC espionage trial has ruled that the evidence must be presented in public, not held secret as the US Attorney had argued. We may at last have coverage of the degree to which Israel has infiltrated our intelligence and government apparatus. At least we'll no longer be frozen out of the slightest inquiry into the conduct of our "ally." (This assumes that the US government proceeds to trial on this basis. I wouldn't be surprised at an interlocutory appeal to delay or reverse the trial court's ruling, or, for that matter, a dismissal of charges by the government on grounds of "national security.")

My favorite line of the judge's ruling: "Justice must not only be done; it must also be seen."

I wouldn't put it past them

So, the Senate has determined to delay Gonzales' appearance until Thursday on account of the shootings at Virginia Tech. The killer was apparently a Korean student, who committed suicide after his rampage. Am I crazy for wondering if somebody in the administration hired him, just to gain a brief respite from the ceaseless barrage of scandal, and two more days for Gonzales to rehearse?

Yeah, I thought so.

Gosh, I wonder why

we in the U.S. don't get al-Jazeera TV. Could it be "political pressure"? Never, not in the good ol' U S of A, where freedom reigns.

South America, anyone?

Chavez in Venezuela, Morales of Bolivia, Correa of Ecuador, Bachelet of Chile and to a lesser extent Lula of Brazil (not to mention Chavez of Nicaragua in Central America)--socialists/progressives all. And if the latest referendum in Bolivia is any indicator, they hold overwhelming popular support.

All my adult life the nations to the south of us (except, of course, Cuba) have been ruled by various American-backed dictators and regimes. There's a distinctly liberating feel to them now, that the populace is taking control of its destiny, its allegiances and its resources. Wouldn't it be wonderful if other nations south of the equator (in Africa, especially) would join them?

All you need to know

about everything is set forth here, more incisively and articulately than I could ever write it. Enjoy.

I don't know whether to applaud or cry

about this fabulous job of reporting by AP writers on a Pentagon coverup of a series of massacres of civilians by the US Army during the Korean War. It's 57 years too late to be helpful to those who were affected, and the Army is still denying any wrongdoing, but at least the truth is emerging. The story is written in direct prose, without those irritating qualifiers that so often fuzz over the reporting these days. The Army lied and is lying still, and may never cease lying, but these reporters, undaunted, are exposing the truth.

So--I suppose, on balance, I'm applauding.

Enough, already!

This Don Imus thing. What a waste of energy! There are so many evils, far more evil than Imus' remarks, that are disregarded by the media, while it flails away at this story. I've tried not to comment, but now find I must in order to maintain my sanity.

I used to listen to "Imus in the morning" regularly. About six years ago I quit, finding his commentary negative and inane. I also believed his project to build a "ranch" in New Mexico to host cancer-afflicted kids (using largely sponsors' funds for the construction so that the bunkhouse was named the American Express Bunkhouse, and so forth) was simply an excuse for him to return to the desert and have a toy to play with. Also, I found his interviews with newsmakers (which he touted as incisive and informative) were pap. I didn't really have trouble with the often-shaky references he made to various minorities, and even after seeing the lists of his remarks in various stories lately, I find many of them offensive but not incendiary, not more vulgar than what passes in many quarters these days for humor.

Of course, MSNBC can cut off its simulcast of his radio show, and others who carry his daily program can cease broadcasting it. That's their right (assuming they're not contractually bound to the contrary). But--and here's where my old ACLU instinct arises--he has a protected right to say what he says, and although it's not my cup of tea it may be somebody's. And--and here's my point--if it's nobody's then "market forces" will drive him off the air because nobody's forcing his listeners to listen.

Furthermore, I find the posturing and feigned outrage of many (especially politicians and media wags who've regularly appeared on his shows over the years, during which time he often used offensive words and references) to be beyond hypocritical, if there is such a state.

There, I've said my piece. Just as Imus has a right to say his.

Explain this to me

Over the years, I've seen (we've all seen) scores of photos of Iraqis holding dead or injured loved ones, wailing in outrage or sadness. Many of the dead were killed by U.S. troops, no doubt, which caused me even greater pain to see. But somehow this photo and its caption make me want to rise up and strike back at those in our nation who've caused this to happen. The man, beholding his wrecked pickup--probably his major asset, probably his means of livelihood--seems so anguished, in such helpless despair. And I can just imagine the hotheaded, frightened U.S. soldiers--teenagers, probably--who were driving the Bradley fighting vehicle, or whatever, that ran over his truck. They were likely afraid to wait for traffic to clear--they're sitting ducks in Baghdad--and so...this. A ruin of a man's life and livelihood.

For what?

One of the benefits of being older

is that I won't have to live in a world like this.

An old friend on film

Environmentalist, humanist Edward Abbey was a friend of mine, and a client. I met him in the mid-sixties when I represented his wife, Judith, who'd been arrested in an antiwar protest. (Judy, still in her thirties, died a few years later.)

Ed later moved to Tucson (my realtor brother, Charlie, found his home in the foothills of the Tucson Mountains), and we saw each other often, for legal stuff and social stuff.

Ed's books were reverent celebrations of the American west. Desert Solitaire, an early book, described his summer as a park ranger in Utah, and a later book, The Monkey Wrench Gang, decried the construction of the Glen Canyon Dam in northern Arizona, a huge project that dammed the Colorado River, flooding the Glen Canyon's fabulous terrain and monumental geological structures.

This video shows Ed in 1981 giving a speech on the top of Glen Canyon to a gathering that is said to have been the genesis of the environmental group, Earth First! It was good to see my old friend, alive and kicking. He died about ten years ago, and as with many things in his life, his death was shrouded in controversy. But that's another story.

Must see

I seldom demand that my vast readership follow my links, but here's one you gotta see.

Jon Stewart for President

Okay, so only 8% of those polled said they'd definitely vote for him, but the percent who'd definitely not vote for him was lower than the percent that definitely wouldn't vote for Newt or Hillary. What does that tell us? I don't have a clue.

Iraq Today

This site regularly lists military developments and acts of violence throughout Iraq. Several weeks into the "surge" the news from yesterday, April 5, doesn't look so good, does it? I wonder how long the U.S. public would stand for our continued presence in Iraq if a daily tally such as this were featured in a boxed article on page one of just a few MSM newspapers.

(No need to read each word of the day's accounts--but do scroll through the entire April 5 post to get a sense of the scope and variety of mad acts. The site was recently moved from here, a site that contains three years' worth of archives of previous daily postings to a similar effect, if you want to compare the present level of violence to earlier periods. Hint: No big difference, except in the increasing sophistication of forms of attacks.)

Holding my breath

The rumor of an imminent attack by the U.S. on Iran, due at four a.m. Iran time tomorrow (see my post below, "Whaddya Think?") has bounced around the web for a few days and I've even heard it discussed among some of my leftist friends, whose reaction is "I don't doubt it one bit."

Well, I do doubt it, frankly. But then I doubted Bush would attack Iraq in the months before the invasion; I doubted he'd nominate Bolton, Alito, Roberts, Gonzalez; I doubted he'd veto embryonic stem-cell funding. In fact, I've doubted scores more actions by this administration only to be proven wrong, and yet I still can't believe Bush is the monster he--it turns out--actually is.

So, having been wrong about Bush so many times in the past, I'm turning on my TV at eight this evening, hoping all's quiet in Persia.

BTW--Here's a fellow nonbeliever, but for a different reason.

Maybe there's hope for us, for the U.S.

I have long argued--including several times in this blog--that true conservatives and liberals agree on a fundamental tenet of constitutional law: a strict restraint on executive power over personal freedoms. Now, finally, we are seeing a rejuvenation of a conservative movement that represents that view--as opposed to the Anne Coulter wing of the right, that accedes to any presidential power that Bush seeks--and its joinder with the liberal left. (Note the membership list in the middle of the article.) Could it be that sanity, and constitutional law, will once again obtain in this republic?

Yeah, what about that?

Remember the "incident" back in January, where American forces grabbed five Iranians in a town in northern Iraq? The justification for it was that they were "Iranian agents" or something, and we've not heard a peep about their whereabouts or disposition since. Well, now it turns out that that act was apparently a blundered attempt by the US to snatch senior Iranian officials--highly-placed intelligence officers--who were in Iraq at the time.

So what's the difference between Iran's seizure of British sailors--even if they were in Iraqi waters--and America's seizure of Iran's officials on Iraqi soil? They're either both illegal, or neither is. But there's this difference: We know where the British sailors are.

You can't make this shit up

From the Washington Times:
"The head of a California company hired by the U.S. government to help build a fence along the Southwest border to curb the flow of illegal aliens into the United States has been sentenced on charges of hiring illegals for the job."

Radical?

He calls for an end to US occupation of Iraq, he calls for a day of protest, of hanging Iraqi flags throughout the nation. He lists the miserable conditions in Iraq since the US invasion.

Just once, I'd like to see al Sadr's name appear in an article without the adjective "radical." His words sound like those of any patriot whose nation is under occupation by a foreign power.

Whaddya think?

This report of an April 6 attack by the US on Iranian sites is awfully (literally) specific. Too specific to be true, or to be untrue?

Free speech?

Apparently not if you say that the US ought to move its embassy out of the heart of Baghdad.

I don't understand

I mean, I just don't get it. Who are those people who stand in line on the opening night of a movie's run, who crowd into the theater with hundreds of others who've paid full-boat ticket prices, to fulfill some need to see the film immediately after its release? What's the benefit from seeing a movie on day one as opposed to day four, or week four?

For that matter, who are those people who bought and installed Microsoft's new Vista system--millions did so in the first weeks of its release--only to learn that it has numerous kinks that cause difficulties with photo and audio peripherals and other applications? Everybody knows a new system will have wrinkles when it's first submitted to widespread use by the public, and the "old system"--Windows XP, which I have on my computer--ain't so bad. So what's the goddam hurry? Why not wait for a month or two or three until the system's been tried in the real world and some of the initial wrinkles ironed out. Really. I want to know.

Let them eat pizza

Given these numbers, where are the bread riots?

High stakes

With some form of troop-withdrawal legislation, tied to funding, apparently nearing the President's desk, and with Bush's vow to veto it, clear battle lines have been drawn. At this juncture, Congress looks to hold the upper hand, politically.

But after the veto, Congress will fail to override and there will be no funding forthcoming for the troops. Then what? Who will win the propaganda war that then ensues? From my perspective, Congress will then be forced to acquiesce in Bush's position to avoid allowing funding to languish, and Bush will have scored a political victory, given the influence of MSM spin and the stupidity of the American people.

We'll see.

Tell me what you think

of these two poems by a 19-year old Barack Obama.

If you wanna bring down the emperor

it doesn't get any better than this. Except maybe this. (And as to the latter, where, exactly, is John McCain's "straight talk express"? Oh he of military background and an asserted aversion to bureaucratic bullshit, evasion, CYA and prevarication. I'd love to see Jon Stewart pull the Tillman question out during one of McCain's cozy interviews, wouldn't you?)

What if the South had seceded?

It might have been a bit dicey for the black folks, but as this essay points out, the North might well have spent that last fifty years at peace.

In lieu of writing these thoughts myself

I link you an essay that says what I feel about Bush, better than I could ever express.

Surely there's a lesson to be learned

Within ten days, Annika Sorenstam loses in a playoff with an unheralded golfer in the MasterCard tournament; Roger Federer loses in an early round of a tennis tournament in California; Tiger Woods' game goes south--a duck hook, two or three water dunks, yanked putts--during the finish of Arnold Palmer's tournament at Bay Hill, Florida, and he drops from contender to undistinguished also-also-ran. Whaddup?

Could it be that these three monuments to their games are human? Is that too facile an explanation? Could it instead be that our expectations of them are inhuman? Are, for that matter, inhumane?

Sometimes statistics say a lot about a culture

Like this one.

The tar-baby syndrome

I've been laid low for the past several days by the flu, but today I managed to compose the following letter to the editor of the SB News Press. The idea that our continued presence in Iraq fuels the terrorists organizations that are the true threat to the West in its "war on terror" isn't new, but it's been lost in the debate about the "surge," with the result that no one seems to reflect on how the surge is actually Osama's briar patch.

"To the editor:


Among their arguments against withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, Bush supporters contend that “if we pull our troops out of Iraq, we’ll be doing precisely what the terrorists want us to do.” While this may be true of some of Iraq’s disputing factions, it is not true of the terrorists who struck our soil on 9/11. That group, which, it is reported, now maintains affiliated cells inside Iraq and is growing in numbers throughout the world, has consistently said its goal is to destroy the world powers that it claims have long dominated and exploited the lands and people of Islam.

That group doesn't want the U.S. to leave Iraq, not at all. It wants to be able to continue to point to the violent U.S. occupation as proof of Western intent to dominate the region; to exploit U.S. troops’ transgressions there (murders, rapes, torture) to fuel their recruitment; and to bleed our nation’s fighting force and treasure. Osama bin Laden (from whatever cave he could be heard) was cheering Bush on as he announced the “surge” ten weeks ago.

If Bush’s “war on terror” is really that, why don't we pull of out Iraq so we can free ourselves to fight it, instead of feeding it?"

Smoke and mirrors

The real estate bubble has burst, the foreclosure rate of those easy-interest refinancings and home purchases is skyrocketing, the marginal-loan industry is reeling from defaults and both interest rates and inflation are on the rise. Bush's "improving economy" was never real. It was based upon historically low interest rates that allowed Americans to borrow on their credit cards and homes at unprecedented levels--causing personal savings to dip into negative figures for the first time since the Depression.
By the time the Bush administration is driven from power the United States will be in the worst shape ever, internationally and domestically. Let's just hope we learn from this experience: That we should think before we vote.

My worst nightmare

The US is now going to police the world? We're going to attack "terrorists" everywhere on the planet, no matter whom they threaten? Bangladesh? Ethiopia? Turkey?

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.