Remember Dr. Strangelove?

In that movie, the civilian US president, played by Peter Sellers, was trying to constrain the crazies--military and intelligent types, played (also) by Sellers, George C. Scott and Sterling Hayden--from war with the USSR. Now, according to this alarming report about Bush/Cheney's war-mongering actions against Iran, it is the military, in the person of an admiral in the US navy, that's trying "to put the crazies back in the box." A must-read, and if verified, a must-impeach.

Heroes

This couple, by their tiny actions, are American heroes. I've lately found myself in positions of imminent arrest because of anti-war activities and I know how dry the mouth gets, how the pulse spikes, how drained is the blood from the limbs. It's scary, truly, to face arrest even for a small crime.

So these two Menonites? Hurrah.

Ouch!

At the end of this video clip (you may have to watch a brief ad first) an impassioned woman parliamentarian pleads with the US not to withdraw and abandon Iraq to its chaos, since, she says, we caused it by drawing al Qaida to Iraq. Her appeal not only has logical consistency, it tugged at my conscience, too. I hate when that happens.

Come September?

We're told that September is a make-or-break deadline for Bush's surge, but I think it may come earlier. If, as scheduled, the Iraqi parliament takes its two-month summer recess starting in July without resolving the "benchmark" legislative logjams over proposed constitutional amendments, power sharing and an "oil law," even US Republicans will jump off Bush's ship of state.

Corporate takeover of everything?

This article describes an emerging phenomenon: privatization of public infrastructure. The reasons for it--providing ready cash for strapped local governments, reducing costs of upkeep and labor and thus lowering local taxes--seem so attractive to governments that the trend feels irrestible. The results, however, are appalling, as detailed in the article. Once all highways and bridges are owned by GM or Burger King or by blind trusts of investors (including, likely, foreigners) can our colleges be far behind? UCLA renamed FedEx U (or UPSU?), the Washington Huskies becoming the Starbucks, the Berkeley campus changed to Nike U?

Just so you know...

I'm not a liberal party-liner on all issues. For example, although I understand that science has by now definitively established that our planet is growing warmer and (to a lesser degree of certainty) that an increase of "greenhouse gasses" contributes to the warming, I remain unconvinced that "human causes," such as emission of pollutants, destruction of forests, asphalting of cities, are significant factors in the process. A documentary that draws these distinctions may be found here. No slap at Al Gore intended: I'd like him to enter the presidential race at all events.

However, nothwithstanding my hesitancy to buy the entire "man-made warming" argument, I still believe we should stop ravaging the Amazon forest, stop driving fossil-fuel vehicles, stop many of the practices we've devoloped that render our planet less habitable and cause global conflict. I do so, however, not (yet, anyway) out of a founded fear of the effects of these actions on the temperature of Earth, but rather because I like the Earth the way it was, with abundant wildlife, clean water, clean air, open space--all that good stuff. Indeed, I believe a major contributor to the degradation of the planet is our exploding populations in the "third world"--which will be exacerbated by the imminent shift of many nations of that world from "third" to "second" or even "first," as countries become more industrialized.

So, I fret for our planet, just like a good liberal. But not for all the "right" (or is it "left"?) reasons.

This is sovereignty?

From the Iraqslogger:

"In other news, Az-Zaman reported that yesterday’s parliamentary session had to be postponed due to the absence of the speaker and the vice-chairs.
According to the newspaper, the deputies who came to attend had to suffer from the lack of air conditioning in the parliament hall, because US troops refused to allow the tankers carrying fuel for the parliament’s generators from entering the Green Zone -– where the parliament is located."

Interpreting the violence

In today's post, Professor Juan Cole attempts to explain the bases for the various acts of violence in Iraq: a carbombing in a Shiite city, another in a Sunni area, a third in Fallujah, plus the "smaller" attacks throughout the nation. He's an expert on the region but is the first to concede that his explanations are speculative. But even so, the varying reasons for the various attacks demonstrates how out of control the situation is throughout Iraq, and why leaving our troops there to umpire this madness is nuts.

Scary numbers

For a long time Bush's approval ratings in national polls have hovered in the mid-30's. This is lately being mirrored in the Rasmussen polls, which does a daily sampling and usually tracks a bit higher, in terms of Bush's approval, because it asks people if they "somewhat approve" as well as whether they "strongly approve" and then the poll combines the two percentages for the overall approval rating.

Rasmussen also asks respondents if they "somewhat disapprove" and if they "strongly disapprove," and here's where the numbers are shocking. While the "somewhat" level has remained relatively constant at about 15%, the "strongly disapprove" has lately soared, as of yesterday (5/7) reaching 46%. Now that's freaky. Almost a majority who find themselves urgently opposed to the nation's leader. Doesn't this mean that an attack on Iran is inevitable?

Dennis on YouTube

Here's Kucinich's spot on YouTube, apparently to appeal to young, hip voters. And you wonder why he's going nowhere? (And who's that lady behind him, towering over him, mugging at the camera? It's apparently his new wife, Elizabeth. So, why not introduce her and then move her a foot or two to the right?) And his quick, geeky speech: For christsakes, is this the best candidate the Left can put up?

Which adage applies?

This story about American troops' concern about Iraqi's army wholesale arresting and imprisoning of innocent Iraqis. Is it, "Pot calling the kettle black," or "Do as I say, not as I do"? Or is it simply, "Shut the fuck up, gringos, and get out of my country!"

Finally, Bush and al Qaida agree on something

Both are opposed to the Democrats' plan to withdraw US forces from Iraq.

Condi sucks

I need to vent. I'm tired of hearing about how Condi Rice is a "realist" in foreign policy, whose counsel to Bush (presumably like Colin Powell's) is akin to that of the advisers to Bush I, as opposed to the "hardliners" like Rumsfeld, Feith, Wolfie, and of course, Cheney. Here is a typical such reference in an article which raises the long-lingering and unanswered question of "whatever happened to those five Iranian officials that the U.S. grabbed in Iraq five months ago?" (As to which question, I ask: Can you imagine the uproar in our country if Iran grabbed five U.S. officials in Iraq and held them incommunicado for months?)

Anyhoo--About this notion that Condi is the moderating voice in foreign policy, whispering common-sense solutions to Bush but being overridden by Cheney. What's the evidence of that, other than White House pundits' assertions? I mean, Condi was the first to use the "mushroom cloud" metaphor. (Bush's speech to that effect came days later.) She's in the forefront of the push to further sanction Iran; to condemn the results of the Palestinian election of Hamas representatives; to call Iraqi insurgents "terrorists" at every press conference. She, in her public utterances, appears to be as much a hardliner as the rest of Bush's advisers. At best, she's like Colin Powell, or, as lately revealed, George Tenet: A Bush enabler, unwilling to do other than nudge him and mumble him toward sanity, but at all events to stay onboard the ship.

And yet, Condi seems to get a free pass. Check out these figures from Rasmussen about her "favorability rating" (57%) as compared to the much lower ratings of others in Bush's cabal, except of course Colin Powell. Certainly those ratings can't be based on her performance as, initally, National Security Adviser (whom both Richard Clarke and Tenet assert was deaf to their alarms about imminent al Qaida attacks in the U.S.), and lately as Secretary of State. I mean--pardon me for asking--what exactly has Condi done to warrant "favorability"? The answer: Absolutely nothing.

Now, it seems, Condi is about to force a showdown with the Congress, in the person of Representative Henry Waxman, over her testimony about the insertion of the infamous "16 words" in Bush's 2003 State of the Union address. Waxman has subpoenaed her and she's apparently resisting and, just yesterday, has apparently refused to allow her staff to testify about the Niger-yellowcake assertion. Let's hope we learn from this confrontation where she stands: Is she a moderating voice in this administration, or is she, like Powell and Tenet, just window-dressing for the evil forces within it?

Check out these numbers

of Americans who, according to a Rasmussen poll, believe Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance. Okay, so the 22% who apparently so believe can be accounted for as the usual "lunatic fringe" set, what about the 22% who say they're not sure (and almost half of the Democrats polled are uncertain).

That such high percentages of people can believe their leader is capable of such a monstrously barbarian act as to allow the attacks to take place is alarming, isn't it?

As a service to my readers

I'm linking to this article describing the top twenty-five online skams and pranks. (My doing so may keep my email inbox free of some of the forwards of such items, too.)

P.S. Among the best on the list is number 14, a link to a website that purports to track the location of your, or anyone's, cellphone via satellite links by simply typing in its area code and number. Try it--it's clever. (Please note that I've not forwarded it to you by email.)

Who's in charge here?

Okay, so now, as predicted, the Democrats have backed down on their "withdrawal-timeline" funding bill after Bush's veto and, after a meeting with Bush, will offer some half-baked voluntary "benchmark" version. Bush will counter with some even weaker version, and in the next few weeks there will be news stories about the two sides trying to resolve differences, ending--just as Karl Rove had scripted--with some form of funding bill that both sides "can live with."

Guess what, you dumb fucking idiot Democrats: You've just made Bush's war your war too. Congratulations for removing the single most devastating issue Republicans face in 2008.

Update: Here's what's going on during the day following various meetings between members of Congress and White House representatives. Posturing and talking, with little accommodation by either side; all of which feels to me like the Democrats are trying to find a way to give in without appearing to, while Bush is allowed to play the role of stubbornly straighforward troop supporter.

A note, however: As much as I dislike her--and her candidacy--I do like Hillary's idea of a bill de-authorizing the Iraq war. It feels right, as a matter of legality and principle as well as tactics. If Bush/Cheney lied us into war, their authority to conduct it should be withdrawn. The bill won't pass, of course, but it's a sharp statement of disapproval of the invasion without being subject to the complaint that it restricts funds for our troops; and (wouldn't it be wonderful?) it would serve as a vehicle for hearings on the administration's prewar lies, since that question would be directly relevant to the subject of the pending legislation.

One exception to my iron-clad resistance to capital punishment

is for this judge.

In case you missed it

here's the video, in its entirety, of Bill Moyers' PBS show, "Buying the War," about the media's failure to report objectively in the run-up to the Iraq invasion.

Watch it and weep.

Odd man out

Over the last six years, since the 9/11 attacks, I've heard commentators use the words "everybody" and "all Americans" to describe the mass of us who supported George Bush in the wake of the attacks. Well, I didn't, and neither did a small percentage of Americans, about ten percent according to this chart.

My reaction to Bush's bullhorn speech and its sequels as he marched us to "war" in Afghanistan (not to mention Iraq) was at the time and has remained that the attacks were the work of a small bunch of crazies whom we should capture and punish, to be sure, but most importantly that we should react to their attacks with calm resolve to deal with the issues that underlay the fanatics's actions. I know that sounds wussy, but that's what I felt.

And now, six years later, as we've done precisely the opposite, it turns out I, and the small percent of decent folks who believed as I did, were right. Bush and his followers have succeeded, instead, in increasing the acts of terrorism around the world.

Now, wouldn't you think they'd listen to us about ending the madness in Iraq? Well, you'd be wrong.

MoDo Rocks!

Maureen Dowd's piece about Tenet's soon-to-be-published "tell-all" is as fun to read as Molly Ivins' columns were. Like Molly, she's taken to labeling her subjects--Tenet is "Slam-Dunk," Cheney is "Darth"--but does, probably out of deference for Molly--avoid "Shrub," using the more generic "Junior" instead.

Enjoy.

Weekend warriors

If there be any doubt about whether the "surge" is working, this report of Saturday's carnage in Iraq should provide the answer.

It's all my fault

If I hadn't made that offhand remark yesterday about Riverbend's failure to post to her blog of late, she wouldn't have decided to leave Iraq.

You want pathos, tragedy, outrage? Try reading her post.

Body counting

It now turns out that the Bush-touted "decline in sectarian violence in Baghdad" is based on skewed numbers. Not skewed, actually: fabricated. The number of bodies that are included in Bush's calculations don't take into account the major killer, namely, bombs carried by cars or suicides.

What won't this administration do to manipulate the public's perception of this awful war?

(I'll keep track to any MSM publication of this new outrage.)

Must see TV

Now that Riverbend has quit posting to her blog (at least lately), check out this video blog (vlog) by some Iraqi young folks. Often sad, always moving.

Look out below!

This site, Forex, tracks the major currencies. I've been following it for years, but lately have placed a fair-sized investment in the euro and so now I check the charts daily. (In order to see charts of the various currencies "against" each other, click on the countries' flags in the center of the frame.) The euro popped through an historic high ($1.36 dollars per euro) a few days ago and appears to have an upper limit constrained only by trade and governmental sanity returning to the US--and hence no barrier at all.

If you've got some spare dollars lying around, you might want to climb on the bandwagon.

The L word

What fun it is, finally, to hear the words "lies" and "liars" in connection with the Pat Tillman investigation being conducted by California Congressman Henry Waxman's committee. Pat's brother no only used those words but repeated them again and again, as to both the Army's explanation of what happened on that ridge in Afghanistan and its coverup by the Army brass.

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".)