Bush's Beach Boy song

You've of course heard John McCain's rendition of "Barbara Ann." Here's Bush's: "Bomb, bomb, bomb. Bomb, bomb, Iraq."

Obama, Oh Yeah!

Here's another reason to vote for Obama in the primaries, a reason that links my antipathy toward Billary with my fear of McCain. And here's another, one that echoes my yearning precisely.

Hey, Ralph Nader

About the Clintons: Why don't you say what you really mean?

A memorandum or a treaty?

This NPR report about Bush's latest tactic with Iraq is scary, and my reaction is, of course, No Fuckin' Way!

Ping pong

Okay, so the press is playing up the spats between Obama's camp and the Clintons' (note the plural). And it looks like Hillary is leaving the South Carolina primary to Obama and jumping ahead to the super Tuesday elections in the big states like California, New York, Florida.

Her idea, of course, is that once she loses South Carolina to Obama (apparently, Edwards is well behind), she can explain the loss as race-based, because of the many black Democratic voters. That, she figures, will scare white Democrats to think in racial terms about Obama--more than they have heretofore--and drive them into her camp.

How to counter this tactic, because we can count on the MSM to exploit it? I dunno, do you?

Just so you know

The billions of dollars spent on the "war on terr'r" are escalating wildly, and are ruining the US economy, just as bin Laden sought.

Meanwhile, in Afghanistan

the battle with the Taliban is "just beginning."

Readers of Nineteen Eighty-four will recognize the state of "perpetual war" that bound the citizens to the leader by fear and a seige mentality, just the way Cheney and the Neo-cons want it.

Obama, I hardly know thee...

These remarks about Reagan? WTF?

For those of you who are counting

Here's a list of "superdelegates" to the Democratic convention, both those who have already committed to a particular Democratic candidate for President and a link to those who've so far not committed. Why is this important? Because with all the hoopla about the Democratic caucuses and primaries (which so far have Clinton and Obama about tied for delegates, with Edwards behind), these "superdelegates" aren't the result of those processes. Instead, they're Democratic insiders: elected or formerly-serving Democrats, higher-ups in the Democratic Party, and the like. They make up almost 1/4 of the total delegate voting power at the convention, and when these are counted, Hillary Clinton leads Obama and Edwards by a huge margin. These "superdelegates" were the product of "reform" of the party in the 1970's, which allowed these leaders a lessened amount of votes in exchange for expanding the power of grass-roots caucuses and primaries.

Certainly, the reform was an improvement over the back-room deals the Democrats used before for choosing presidential candidates, but there's still a heavy loading of the voting in favor of traditional power--in this case, the Clinton dynasty.

All the news that's fit to print?

Here are two accounts of Bush's recent "important" speech during his trip to the Middle East. The first account (at the top of the report) is by McClatchy, and it places Bush's words in context, balancing what he says with the political and economic reality of the region; and the second (scroll down) is by the NYT, which merely parrots Bush's words. Recall it was Knight-Ridder (which since has been bought by McClatchy) that questioned the evidence about Iraq's WMD and its connection to al-Qaeda in the months before the March, 2003, invasion, while the NYT was rooting for war.

Just an observation, which, however, might lead my loyal readers to add McClatchy to their list of news sources.

Winning hearts and minds

by attacking Iraqi kindergartens?

The last dispatch

Here's an article in the Guardian, the final one from Iran by Robert Tait, whose application to remain in that country was recently denied. It's an insightful and sometimes sad and scary assessment of Iran's politics and culture by a man who lived there for three years, learned the language and married an Iranian woman. Must reading to get a handle on one of the members of the "axis of evil."

Here's where I stand (right now)

This essay says it better than I could, so I'll just add these thoughts: Imagine two little black kids running down the halls and playing on the lawn of the White House; imagine broadcasting to the rest of the world, including those "Islamofascists," that we've just elected a man whose middle name is Hussein (grandson of the prophet Muhammad); imagine what we would feel about America--its prospects at home and in the world, its promise to all peoples of the world. Just imagine. It's enough, isn't it, to make you want to race to the ramparts?

So, in a few days, maybe sooner, you'll see me astride them holding a sign that says,

Obama?

Oh, Yeah!

Well, duh...

Five years of invasion/occupation and it finally occurs to our leaders to offer the Iraqis jobs to clean up the damage we caused? Five years to figure this out? WTF?

The good hurt

Back in high school, the football coach told us when we were complaining that certain calisthentics were painful (I particularly despised the repeated running-in-place, then dropping to the ground, then up again), that we were feeling "the good hurt." Well, now, torn between voting for Obama and Edwards in the upcoming California primary, I'm experiencing the good hurt. They're both fine candidates and although my preference--based on positions alone--is for Kucinich, I realize he's not going to get the nomination, so I feel compelled to vote for someone who might.

Nader endorsed Edwards. Kucinich recently told those in Iowa who were caucusing for him in the first phase, that if he didn't get the required 15% of members, he'd want them to support Obama. This might be enough to give Obama enough votes to win in Iowa. However, I read today a piece by Michael Moore that mirrors my thoughts precisely, and it tends to favor Edwards for many of the same reasons I do.

Oh, the good hurt.

Iowa, where are ya?

Here's an important endorsement for Edwards, and a telling commentary on Hillary. I mean, with all his baggage, Nader is, to me, still the man!

Stories like this

make my blood boil--and, if you didn't deduce it from my name, I'm a whitey. If I were black or brown, I'd be heaving Molotov cocktails everywhere.

One step forward, ten steps back

Here's a description of the final "amnesty bill" that has been passed by the Iraqi parliament. (Scroll to bottom of article.) Under its terms I wonder who will be released? The way it reads, it looks like only innocent Shiites will be freed, as one would expect from a Shiite-dominated government. It sure doesn't feel like a significant move toward "reconciliation," does it? Next question: What the fuck are we doing in Iraq, spending our billions and our blood? The worst nightmare, to me as to Franz Kafka, is being persecuted without explanation, without reason. That's how I feel these days, as Americans drive by our protests of this ongoing occupation, heedless, apathetic, busy shopping.

One good thing about the new year...

It can't be worse than 2007. Can it?

Who's on first?

After you read this account of the present situation in Basra, the major port of Iraq through which most of its oil is exported (and which British troops will soon be leaving) you tell me.

Sometimes it helps to have a Ph.D.

It allows you to research and write concise, accurate blog-postings like this one on the "Top Ten Myths about Iraq." Must reading, even for those of us who don't believe a word of the telecasters on the subject.

Take a guess

Which is it: The Iraqi parliament is going to grant amnesty (under certain very vague conditions) to all "innocent" resistance fighters that are held in Iraq and US prisons, as is reported by AFP; or does the amnesty apply only to those held in Iraqi prisons, as reported by AP.? Since the US holds 26,000 (probably more) prisoners, the question is more than technical. And since those held by the US no doubt feel no love lost for the occupiers, I wonder how the DOD is going to explain a mass release to the soldiers who gave their lives capturing them.

Your guess as to which report is correct?

Just the facts

Here's a good site, especially during political campaigns.

Latino revenge

It looks like Rodriguez ain't no Gonzales.

Democrat's rule?

This WaPo essay predicts a decade-long (and maybe longer) domination by Democrats in both local and national politics. While I don't argue with the numbers that it cites, I'm troubled by its failure to recognize unforeseen contingencies, including, most notably, another terrorist attack between now and the 2008 elections. We've learned already that we're a nation of sheep, and it certainly wouldn't take much to once again shepherd us by fear into another corral. (Excuse the ugly metaphor.)

Danger, real danger

The politicization of the Judge Advocate General's office, from top to bottom, is looming under the Bush administration. In the past, these military lawyers have stood as an independent impediment to the incumbent administration's effort to shape the legalities of war and warmaking. Keep an eye on this prospect, it's truly alarming.

Women in Basra

This report from The Guardian about the status of women in Basra (click on title, then run the video) saddens me deeply. The film of the Iraqi women, dressed in normal western garb, coming and going about their business in the 1960's, and now, out of fear, draped in those ugly coverings: How has this happened? Indeed, how have we Americans allowed our nation to revert to past injustices and constraints on freedom? Are these times a present-day version of the Dark Ages?

Startling numbers

Check out this essay revealing the astounding shift of American incomes in the last five years, with the top 5% of household incomes gaining income at unprecedented rates, while the bottom 95% has lost an average of $3,600 annually in the shift.

I'd like to see the Democratic-controlled Congress address this issue, for heaven's sake. So far, I don't think it's even on their radar.

It's as simple as ABC--Anybody but Clinton

I'm probably going to change my voter registration from Green to Democrat so I can vote in the upcoming California presidential primary. I'm now in the process of deciding which of the candidates I'll vote for. Over the next few weeks, I'll be sharing my thoughts with you on this blog, as much to focus on them myself as to edify you.

My first thought is, of course, that Hillary's not the one. Here's one reason: She's almost as bad as the Republican candidates when it comes to the war in Iraq.

Fasten your seat belts

And put your money in gold. It looks like we're in for a bumpy ride.

(I especially like the reaction of the financial executive to the enormous increase in the producers' price index: "Ugh!")

A word from the wise

Juan Cole on Nancy Pelosi.

I just don't get it

Look, I'm a political science major, and I've stayed abreast of politics since college. I know that in the US Senate (under its rules, not under the Constitution, mind you) it takes 60 votes to invoke closure and therefore to force a floor vote on proposed legislation. I know, therefore, that if a measure--like the energy bill yesterday--receives "only" 59 votes for passage, those 59 votes could not cut off debate if the opponents of the bill demanded to continue. In other words, if those opposing the bill chose to filibuster the bill, they could continue to do so for eternity and thereby tie up the Senate to avoid a floor vote on the bill, which, if allowed, would pass by a simple majority vote.

My question is this: Why don't the Democrats simply keep the bill on the floor and thereby require that the Republicans filibuster the bill? Make them spend Christmas on the Senate floor, make them keep the floor for weeks and months to avoid a closure vote? Particularly in this case, where the Republicans (and one Democrat, Breaux from Louisiana) are opposed to the energy bill as it's written because it increases some taxes on the massively-profiteering oil companies.

Am I crazy here, or are the Democrats simply cowards?

I'm going out on a limb here

because I know only what's in the papers, but this FBI investigation into various affairs of the federal entity that has been reporting massive defalcations and waste and fraud in the Bush administration's Iraq "reconstruction" activities feels and smells like retribution to me. Does it to you?

One tires of asking...

"Where's the outrage?" You'd think, wouldn't you, that somebody--an American leader of the feminine persuasion such as Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi or my Representative, Lois Capps--would cry out for her gender. But no. Let the Iraqi women suffer in silence.

A fundamental question

"Are Americans really 'better than that'?"

Another day in the life

of the "improving security situation" in Iraq: 72 Iraqi civilians killed, 177 wounded.

Further to the "Bush plan" to help subprime borrowers

I realize that Paul Krugman is a "liberal" economist/journalist, but in addition to the source I cited in my previous post ("Sweet Spot, 12/07) about the effect of Bush administration's "plan" to deal with the subprime loan debacle (namely, that it's a cruel hoax and a charade) check out Krugman's analysis in yesterday's NYT. His view: That it's an ineffective, industry-driven attempt to preempt a Congressional effort to deal meaningfully with the crisis. In other words, a cruel hoax and a charade.

Iraq according to the American Empire

So this is the Bush administration's version of "success" in Iraq: a series of segregated communities and regions, patrolled by police squads and separated by checkpoints and blast walls.

A perfectly fitting ending to a perfectly horrific war.

Sweet spot

The terms of "Bush's plan" to "bail out" borrowers whose subprime loans are in danger of foreclosure is both a cruel hoax and a charade. Here's a capsule of what it really means to both mortgagors and the lenders (and those who bought the loans), namely, nothing but a worthless news headline that does nothing but create the impression that Bush is helping borrowers, when in fact the administration's position is that it doesn't care at all about those who need help, but only those who read only headlines.

An illuminating lede

Here's the first sentence of an AP dispatch from Baghdad today:


"A car bomb exploded in a largely Shiite neighborhood of Baghdad on Wednesday and killed at least 14 people, police said, while Defense Secretary Robert Gates said during a visit to the capital that security and stability were within reach, although more work is needed."

(Actually, an update of the story says that 16 were killed in the bombing, and that nine more Iraqis were killed elsewhere in the country by other blasts.)

Any questions?

Old news revisited

Now that the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear proclivities has been made public, it's illuminating to revisit a month-old story about the White House efforts to delay and alter it. If you wondered why they (particularly Cheney) weren't satisfied with its conclusions, now you know.

What next?

Okay, so Hugo Chavez isn't the dictator Bush said he was, and Iran isn't developing nuclear weapons after all. What new monster will this administration create to scare us into voting out of fear? My guess: We'll have a new "terr'r alert" in the next week or so. And a monthly one from now until election day, 2008. Recall--even if Bush doesn't seem to focus on it--the "evil-doers" who caused 9/11 are still at large, and growing larger.

Winning by losing

The (narrow) defeat at the Venezuelan polls of Hugo Chavez's multifaceted constitutional initiative (it contained many provisions, not just the "president-for-life" clause that the US media focused on) must certainly gripe the Bush administration. There goes their claim that Chavez is a dictator. Now what's their counter going to be, when he repeatedly lambasts their imperial acts around the globe? And what's going to happen to all those plans of the CIA to stage a coup against him? Gone off the drawing board? Don't count on it.

Supporting the troops

If these policies, laws--and this prosecution--are indications of the mindset of our military, I'm certainly more supportive than the brass is.

Figures don't lie

The level of violence in Iraq is "leveling off," it is said. And the obesity rate in the US is too.

Could these be caused by similar phenomena: The maximum quotient of suffering has been reached?

I told you so

Here's a capsule, related by Juan Cole, Middle East expert, of the important part of last night's Republican presidential debate. (I couldn't watch the whole thing. It was beyond my tolerance. Way beyond.) It's an exchange between Congressman Ron Paul and Senator John McCain about the war in Iraq, which reveals--as Professor Cole points out--that McCain is a dangerous, demented militaristic nutcase. (My phrase, not quite his.)

During this presidential campaign--even before it began, when it became clear that McCain was going to run and was thought of as a "maverick" and a frontrunner--I've been on my soapbox, yelling about him: that I knew his history, having been in his Arizona constituency for decades, and that for all his charm and affability, he's at heart a mad warmonger. Now do you believe me?

A day in the life

This report about US troops killing four bank employees in Baghdad who were on their way to work is revealing. Apparently our troops fired upon the van they were traveling in because it was driving on a street that our military had designated to be used only by sedans.

Yup, violence is down in Baghdad. Just like it was in the Warsaw ghetto.

I don't get it..or do I?

This MSM-drumbeated rap on Obama, that he lacks the "experience" to be President. Oh, really? I'm not an embedded Obama supporter (he's a bit cautious for me, especially on his views about the Iraq occupation and his insurance-based healthcare program), but I wonder whether the lack-of-experience mantra is a disguised racial/youth putdown, not a legitimate objection to nomination. I mean, what about Jimmy Carter, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton--all sometimes southern governors? They all won the presidency for their parties. What was their experience, particularly in foreign affairs? Absolutely none. Certainly less than that of Obama, who has at least served in national office for a time.

And then there are the presidents who touted their "experience" in national and international affairs: Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush. They won their nominations and the presidency too, and guess what? Ruination.

I say, don't listen to the MSM spin. Don't listen to the pundits. Listen to the candidates.

So... Whaddaya think?

Will it happen, as I've so long predicted, that Cheney will soon resign due to "health problems" and Bush (with Congressional approval) will appoint his replacement, to give the Republicans an incumbent veep to run against the Democrats' nominee?

Do you want to lay odds?

Surprise, surprise

Iraq's "leaders" are inclined to enter a long-term relationship with the U.S., which would include favorable incentives for U.S. investment in their country. Imagine that.

Worst empire ever?

The Archbishop of Canterbury ought to know.

A day in the life

of our new, dramatic democracy in the Middle East.

I ask again: Where are the bread riots?

This quote is from an article about the increasing numbers of outrageously expensive cars that are lately being manufactured and sold throughout the world's markets.

"And more and more people can afford them, as more get rich and the rich get richer. Worldwide, the number of "ultra-high net-worth individuals" grew 11.3% from 2005 to 2006, according to the 2007 World Wealth Report, published in June, 2007, by Cap Gemini and Merrill Lynch.
"The report identifies as "ultra-high net-worth" those individuals with more than $30 million in "financial assets"—that is, public and private stock, bonds, and cash, but not counting "collectibles, consumables, consumer durables, and real estate used for primary residences." "Global wealth is rapidly consolidating among this ultra-wealthy segment," the study said. As fast as the ranks of the ultra-wealthy grow, so grows the number of ways they can spend their money."

Body count

As I've mentioned before, I carry in my car and display regularly around town large sign that, among other things, sets out the number of G.I.'s who've been killed and wounded, the amount of money spent, and the number of civilians deaths caused by our invasion and occupation of Iraq. I change the numbers from time to time (the G.I. deaths daily), based on new information. As of today, my figures are G.I. deaths--3876; G.I. wounded--28,530; dollars spent--546 million dollars; Iraqis killed--650,000. I base the number of G.I. dead and wounded on this site's data, which, it says, is a compilation of reported figures from the Defense Department. The numbers of dollars and Iraqi deaths are my estimations based on varying sources that appear in the media. In both cases, I've adopted conservative figures, not wanting to overstate the case or allow Bush administration supporters to claim I'm inflating the horror of their war.

Problem: I may be understating the numbers, and I wonder if I shouldn't be more aggressive in my various tabulations. For example, I learned today that the G.I. wounded figures don't include approximately 20,000 soldiers who've suffered "brain injury" that hasn't been reported until after the soldier is home from theater. That figure, reported by USA Today, lumps together the injuries from Iraq and Afghanistan, but I could estimate, reasonably, that 4/5 of them originated in Iraq based on the respective numbers of attacks on our troops in each country.

Another example: I've recently read an article that states that the dollars spent on the Iraq adventure now exceeds one trillion, but I've not updated the number on my sign because I have no specific data source for it; and the same is true of the number of Iraqis killed. There are higher estimates, but no hard numbers.

Question: Should I continue displaying only my "conservative numbers"? They're horrific enough, I grant, but am I being too charitable to the monsters who've wrought this mad war? Or should I risk overstating the case, increasing my figures to reflect the recent upward revisions stated in various news items? For example, should I add, say, 16,000 to the wounded total, to estimate the brain-injured cases from Iraq? Should I post "one trillion dollars" as found in a recently-estimated cost of the Iraq war? Should I increase the "Iraqis killed" figure to one million, as some authoritative estimates have stated?

Your thoughts?

I don't get it

France, which opposed Bush's invasion of Iraq, recently elects a conservative president who is now currying favor with the US administration. Australia, which was one of Bush's supporters in the invasion, has just thrown out John Howard's conservative party, replacing it with the Labor Party which vows to withdraw Australian troops from Iraq.

I feel sorry for us humans. We've created a world that's beyond comprehension.

Four dollar gasoline

This article in USA Today gives a quick insight into whaddup with the recent spike in crude oil futures prices, namely, there's no economic/logical reason for it. However, since it's happening (today was a huge jump, to an all-time high above $98.00 per barrel), the result may soon be gasoline at four dollars per gallon, with the cataclysmic result that's described in the last line of the article.

Works for me.

Now, here's some great news

for novelists, poets and short story writers. My advice to them: Get a day job.

World War Five

If the Cold War was number three, and the "War on Terr'r" is number four, here's the start of number five. Trouble is, how do we support an attack on Iran, Venezuela and all the other OPEC nations when they decide to quit taking our "worthless paper" as currency?

The escape artist

These analysts may be right. Bush will manage to wallow through the tragic mess he created in Iraq with sufficiently low, spinable numbers of deaths and attacks to hand off the tragedy to a Democratic president and be able to claim that the eventual cataclysm wasn't his fault. He'll be blamed for starting it, to be sure, but because of the Democrats' timidity in not ending the occupation, they'll share the blame for the wretched aftermath, if ever there is one. And so, ironically, Bush will once again escape responsibility for his awful record of failures, this time because his supposed adversaries have enabled him to do so.

I'm beginning to hope I'm not around to see it.

Sometimes the Internet's not so cool

Just because you have instant access to information, doesn't mean you always enjoy what you learn. A recent example: I was watching "Young Frankenstein" on AMC, and I wondered whatever happened to Teri Garr, who played the role of the alluring "assistant" to the good doctor, and whose many appearances as a sexy comedienne made her a constant presence on the big screen in the eighties and nineties.

Well, I learned that she's suffering from multiple sclerosis and that she recently made an appearance on Doctor Phil in a wheelchair.

Talk about something I wish I hadn't learned.

Our allies in the "war on terr'r"

Pakistan, wonderful democratic Pakistan, has nothing on Saudi Arabia, given this example of its fine and fair judicial system.

At some point, do US citizens come to comprehend why our nation is no longer held in repute in the world? I mean, with allies like this, who needs enemies?

I wish I'd said that

This quote from a reporter in Iraq says it all--about the state of that nation, but even more about the state of our media's reporting of it.

”Iraqi and American officials should be ashamed of talking of 'unidentified bodies',” said Haja Fadhila, from the Ghazaliya area of western Baghdad. ”These are the bodies of Iraqis who had families to support, and names to be proud of. But nobody talks about them, there is no media. It is as if it is all taking place on Mars.” The Iraqi ministries for health and interior have said that they are finding on average five to 10 ”unidentified bodies” on the streets of Baghdad every day. ”Those Americans and their Iraqi collaborators in the Green Zone talk of five or 10 bodies being found every day as if they were talking of insects.”

Bottoming out

At this rate, by next November, Bush's approval numbers will be in the teens. It can't happen, can it?

Ya gotta love it

It doesn't get any better than this, unless it's the International Spelling Bee, or the World Snowboarding Championships. And even then: Bridge players against Bush? Priceless.

Senator Feinstein ain't fine, no way!

As a Californian in Santa Barbara, I'm (somewhat) blessed by being represented in the House of Representatives by Lois Capps, a relative liberal, and in the Senate by Barbara Boxer (ditto). On many issues, they're decent legislators. Not on all, mind you--especially, of late, on the issue of Bush/Cheney impeachment--but on many.

But (putting aside Nancy Pelosi, who's technically not my representative) who's this Dianne Feinstein creature, who definitely is? Here's the text of an email I just received from Democracy for America, the website for which is here:

http://www.democracyforamerica.com/

Too many times Senator Feinstein has failed to represent the people of
California. Now she has announced that this Thursday she will support
President Bush for the third time in two months. And it all comes down to
Senator Feinstein's role on the Judiciary Committee.
Strike One: A Bush nominee for the federal bench, Leslie Southwick has a long history of rulings in lower courts that violate equality laws. Feinstein cast a
deciding vote to give him a lifetime seat.
Strike Two: Michael Mukasey, nominated for Attorney General, refused to say he would oppose torture. But Feinstein voted to send his confirmation to the Senate floor anyway.
Now she's poised for her third bad vote in a row, on a rework of the FISA Act --
the law that's supposed to protect us all against illegal wiretapping. When the Bush administration didn't want to follow this law, they asked major telephone companies like AT&T and Verizon to help. Several phone companies broke the law to help Dick Cheney read our emails and listen to our phone calls. They knew it was illegal. But they didn't expect to get caught.
Now that they did, the Bush administration is trying to protect AT&T and others from lawsuits by granting retroactive immunity for breaking the law. The Senate Judiciary Committee can kill this bill if all ten Democrats vote against it.
Strike Three: Senator Feinstein is the
only Democrat who says she'll vote for it.

Senator Feinstein is an awful legislator for a myriad of other reasons, but I like this message. It's timely and on point, and it's got a nice ring to it. Striking out Feinstein under the same draconian law that California has enacted for career criminals.

Can you believe it?

The United Nations Security Council in the next few weeks will consider renewing its mandate that authorizes the ongoing occupation of Iraq, without including Iraq's parliamentary voice in the deliberations. Apparently, a majority of the Iraqi parliament some months ago lawfully required its inclusion, but the UN is likely to re-authorize the occupation for another year without considering Iraq's demand that it not be allowed without inclusion of a timetable for withdrawal of US troops.

Sovereignty?

Now here's an interesting question

In the wake of Attorney General Mukasey's confirmation by the Senate on a 54-43 vote, whatever happened to the "60-vote requirement" that the media (and the Democrats) cite to explain why liberal legislation fails enactment.

One thing Bush is good at

Adding words to America's lexicon. From the man who gave you "decider," we now have "suicider."

Next up, I suppose, is his word for a person who makes a juice from apple pulp.

WTF?

From the nation that brought you abu ghraib and waterboarding and preemptive war and shock and awe, now this.

Beach Boys rock!

Check out their new video. Great production values, and timely, too.

Nora Ephron rocks!

Here's how I'd like to write political commentary, instead of the dry, angry outbursts that appear on this blog. Fun to read, incisive too.

Wisdom of the ages

Here's a short Encyclopedia Brittanica movie about democracy and despotism from sixty-one years ago. Couldn't have said (or filmed) it better myself.

Finger in the dike

(No, this post isn't a gender slur.)

For four years, I've been hauling around in my car a big sign that I display on weekly "peace marches" and at street corners in Santa Barbara and beyond whenever the mood strikes me that I've got to do something other than grumble about the state of the nation and type little ditties on this blog. The sign, for the first several months, carried varying messages: "Impeach Cheney First!", "NeoCons? No, same old con." "Wake Up, America, Impeach!" and the like. About two years ago I settled on a single message: On one side of the sign are listed the current figures for dead and wounded G.I.'s and Iraqis, and for the billions of dollars spent on the Iraq war and occupation; and on the other side is the exhortation, "Out of Iraq--Now!" I settled on this display because I believed the issue of the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq was the single most important question of our time.



But my view has been overtaken by events. Now we have to deal with an imminent attack by the crazed US executive on the nation of Iran; a battle between separatist Kurds and Turkey's military, that could expand into a regional conflict involving a NATO ally on one side and the nation we occupy on the other; US threats and Israeli aerial attacks on Syria; the continuing deterioration of Afghanistan's "democracy," now involving a burgeoning poppy trade and the resurgence of the Taliban regime; and most recently the sharp reversal in Pakistan, a nuclear-armed "ally" in the "global war on terror," now despotically ruled by a military dictator whose allegiances and stability are at best questionable. When I add in the ongoing failure of the United States to address climate change, income disparity, health care, corruption in politics, drug addiction, childhood obesity, rampant materialism, loss of meaningful employment, loss of civil liberties, torture and imprisonment without trial--to list a few of the present outrages extant in today's America--I'm beginning to feel that my sign's protest is but pissing in the wind.

On the other hand, I've decided not to change my sign--except to amend it daily to display the latest death toll--because I don't have room on it for the above litany, and it wouldn't make sense to the viewer if it simply said, "Arise and Revolt!" People who saw it would simply think it was an ad for a rock group or a new energy drink.

Diminishing refuge

I regularly check this site for data about the value of the dollar in foreign currencies. In the center of the home page are a series of flag emblems, labeled "charts," which if clicked will pop up with graphs of the various currencies' recent and past history against the dollar.

Of course all the charts show the precipitous decline of the dollar--most notoriously, lately, against the euro--but check out whazzup with the Canadian dollar. If ever I had in mind to split to Vancouver, no way Jose. Not with the Canadian dollar (until a few years ago worth about $.65 US) now worth a nickel than ours.

Heedless,mindless apathy

Here's a copy of a letter to the editor of the Santa Barbara News-Press that I sent today.

About seventy folks gathered at Vera Cruz Park on Saturday (10/27) to protest the ongoing nightmare that is the Iraq war and occupation. After songs and speeches, some of us spread out in small bunches along State Street to display antiwar signs, while a few others paraded along the sidewalk singing John Lennon’s “Imagine.” It was a finely planned—indeed, a refined—demonstration of opposition to the Bush administration’s actions in Iraq. It was met by smiles and thumbs-up from passersby, as well as supportive honks from the stream of cars that filled the boulevard.

The key words in the previous paragraph are “small bunches” and “a few.” This immoral war has been grinding on for almost five years, and despite widespread opposition to it by a majority of Americans—and despite the urgent efforts of the organizers of Saturday’s demonstration—we could muster only handfuls of protesters? Have we become so preoccupied with purchasing, so attached to routine, so conditioned by media and government that we don’t care anymore what is happening in our name around the world? Have we become “the good Germans” of the 1930’s who remained mute while their government took over first them, and then Europe?

The cartoon character Pogo once said, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.” His creator, Walt Kelly, meant it to apply to Americans’ silence in the face of McCarthyism in the 1950’s. I fear it applies to Americans now, with equal force and with even greater ignominy.

Update: The letter was published in the News-Press on 11/1/07.

I wonder why

the number of dead and injured American soldiers in Iraq is down lately, while the number of dead and injured innocent Iraqi civilians is up. Could this be why?

Update: Apparently so.

A picture is worth

more than a million words. It's priceless.

All my adult, conscious life

I've waited for this.

A video from the past

Wanna watch something really depresssing? Here's the culture I was raised in, filmed precisely when I was graduating high school.

The Battle in Seattle

Admit it: You weren't aware, as I wasn't, of what all those folks who were throwing rocks at the Seattle cops in 1999 were protesting. I mean, "globalization" and the International Monetary Fund and the WTO and such-like? What's the problem? In fact, even after I heard a Ralph Nader speech about the evils of these concepts (harm to American labor, harm to the world's environment, etc.) I was unmoved.

Well, now I'm fascinated, as much about how wrong I was to be ignorant then as about how prescient those protesters were. Fascinated enough to read with attention the entirety of this long piece about the longlasting detrimental impact of globalization upon the US working class and its contribution to the growing income disparity between workers and those who boss them. I'll save you the trouble of reading it. Bottom line: Globalization, for the American working class, means cheaper underwear and DVD-players, but no money to buy them.

Am I crazy or is Bush?

Here's a quote from a Bush news conference today:

"We've got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel," he [Bush] said. "So I've told people that, if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."


This madman in the White House is using language straight out of Dr. Stranglove, not in connection with an imminent attack on the US, not even an imminent attack on a treaty-bound ally, but to threaten world war based on a titular-president's rhetorical attack on foreign nation with which we have no reciprocal-defense treaty obligations. Furthermore, Bush's threat is made solely on the prospect that Iran might obtain the "knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." My God--talk about moving the goalposts, now our nation is going to start a world war because another country has "knowledge"? Because another country's president has made some untoward remarks about another nation? What about our statements about Iraq/Iran/North Korea/Libya/many others? We've been much more threatening to them that Iran is to Israel (and certainly to the US) and our threats aren't mere rhetoric but are backed by demonstrated nuclear weaponry.

Look, I knew before we invaded Iraq that Bush was going to go forward regardless of the protests or that facts "on the ground." But I've so far pooh-poohed the prospect of his attacking Iran. Call me stupid or in denial or just plain Pollyanna-ish, but I've until lately believed that with respect to Iran, Bush was "all hat and no cattle." But I fear I've been wrong. Language like the above demonstrates to me that he's absofuckinglutely nuts, that he's decided already to take out Iran's nuclear reactors/facilities whatever the state of negotiations/evidence/diplomacy. There's no other explanation for such incendiary language by the commander-in-chief of a world power.

Folks, we've got Dr. Strangelove in the Oval Office. Worse, we've got General Jack D. Ripper.

A graphic

is worth a million words.

Letter to the LA Times

In the past, my letters to editors have been to the SB Independent and News-Press.
With the following letter, I've decided to go bigtime. If anyone should see it in print in the Times, please let me know, because I'm only an occasional reader of that fine paper.

Dear editor:

I am curious. I wonder if any of your readers could point to a single feature or measure of the Bush administration—just one, in any field (except corporate profits and rising stock prices)—that has proven successful. We know too well the mind-numbing string of failures. The faulty pursuit of Osama bin Laden; the illegal and inept invasion and occupation of Iraq—and (it lately appears) Afghanistan; the worsening Middle East mess; the declining dollar; the loss of decent American jobs and the gigantic gap between rich and poor; the health care debacle; the growing environmental crisis; the upward-spiraling price of oil; the humongous federal deficit and international trade imbalance; the alienation of our allies and the disdain in which the US is held around the globe; the violations of our civil liberties; the corruption and incompetence of government; the decline of our military readiness—to name a few. Even the rise in home ownership that President Bush once touted has proven to be a Potemkin village, as thousands of foreclosures of easy-credit mortgages have reversed the numbers, resulting in a net decline in ownership during Bush’s tenure.

Some will argue that the U.S. hasn’t been attacked again since 9/11, to which the easy answer is this: If the purpose of bin Laden was to wreck America and instill fear and uncertainty in its citizens, he has succeeded beyond his wildest dreams, aided and abetted by the abhorrent policies and ruinous actions of his effective accomplice, George W. Bush.

In a nutshell

here's the situation, the dire situation, in Iraq that explains both the Anbar Province "success" and the future Iraq disaster. Note the author's prediction that the disaster will obtain under candidate Clinton as well as under any Republican candidate.

Pray for us, for our kids, for our grandkids. Bush/Cheney have created an endless nightmare.

Another day in Iraq

Take a look at this list of killings in Baghdad today, Tuesday. (Scroll down to "security incidents.") The total dead from bombings and shootings is, by my count, 38, with 104 wounded. Another 47 dead in other parts of Iraq.

I'm going to keep beating this drum until somebody listens.

What's new?

Ya know, I'm getting sick and tired of reading stories--"news" accounts, they're called--of events that many sensible students of history and human behavior predicted would occur years earlier. The accounts adopt a breathless, urgent tone, as if the latest development materialized out of thin air, with no warning, no foreknowledge by anyone. The most obvious example is of course the debacle that has become Iraq--even Cheney knew that was going to happen, having warned against invading Iraq a decade earlier when he was SecDef to Bush I.

The Blackwater outrage. How could it not happen that that would finally blow up? A bunch of young, highly-paid former soldiers, armed to the teeth, immunized from legalisms such as the prohibition of murder, driving helter-skelter through the cities of Iraq with supposed urgent duties and God on their side? That they'd run amok? Whoodathunkit?

The collapse of the dollar? The subprime mortgage mess? The rising price of oil and of corn for ethanol? The loss of US manufacturing jobs and the growing income disparity? There are so many of such predictable--predicted--disastrous developments that I've tired of chronicling them, even of observing them. I've taken to reading headlines only, because the body of the stories don't say anything I don't already know, and have known for years.

Revisionism redux

This "stab-in-the-back" story, so common to justify a nation's military defeat, is already in progress with respect to the inevitable sad ending to America's Iraq adventure, as Eric Alterman points out. But I must add that Congressional Democrats have only themselves to blame for its viability. Had they acted promptly to de-fund the war nine months ago, in accord with the mandate they gained from the 2006 elections, Bush would not have been able to pawn the war off onto the next president, whichever Democrat it is, to damn him/her with its eventual horrific conclusion. As it now stands, the Iraq occupation will drag on for another several years, and when it ends the inevitable decline of Iraq into bloody bedlam will be laid at the feet of those then in power, leaving Bush/Cheney and their apologists able to escape blame for the consequences of their egregious misuse of America's military might.

Doubting Thomas

Here's an essay about Clarence Thomas, with a long string of comments pro and con, dealing with his just-released memoir and his Sunday interview on Sixty Minutes. I watched the latter (I'm not going to buy the book for obvious reasons), and my impression was clear, pure, direct: This man is a small-minded, foul-spirited person, as low a form of life as can be found on the planet--with apologies to bacteria. If/when the interview comes online, give it a look and tell me what you see.

A leader of the pack of rats jumps ship

Tom Friedman, an "economic essayist" for the NYT and a staunch supporter of the invasion and occupation of Itaq, finally realizes that the "war on terror" was a mistaken concept and that it's time has come to get out of Iraq and cut our losses. His reason: it's bad for business.

Compassionate conservatism?

I'm not on fire about user fees for our national parks and monuments. It does make some sense to me to charge a fee to the folks to visit them, as opposed to supporting them solely by taxation, even though they're our common, national property. I makes some sense, although of course I understand the contrary argument, and I even understand the vehemence with which opponents of user fees express themselves.

But here's a fee that's nothing but mean-spirited and unfair and outrageous. Charging a $25 fee to recipients of more than $500 a year in child support payments to fund the governmental effort to collect delinquent support payments from others. Part of the Republicans' Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. Now you tell me: Is that fair? Is that governance you recognize? Is that even sane?

Havasu? No, have a headache.

I've recently driven through the towns that have sprung up along the Colorado River: Havasu City, Parker, Bullhead City, Arizona, and Laughlin, Nevada. They are as foul, as purposely ugly and hot and crass as an American town can be. I vowed never to return, to avoid being exposed to such miserable conditions, such a wretched culture. And now, I have another reason to stay away.

Lost in translation

With all the press that Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is getting these days about his remarks at Columbia University and the UN, it would be wise, I think, to test the reportage of his statements in the MSM against the accuracy of the accounts of his now-infamous "Israel-should-be-wiped-off-the-map" speech a few years ago. As this detailed translation of his Farsi words demonstrates, he said no such thing. Given the tenor of the times, we'd better be darned sure what we're being told about his statements is accurate. I'd hate to start another war based on falsities, wouldn't you?

World War III

Is this what it would look like? If so, to what Pacific island would you relocate?

Credit crush

Here's an insider's explanation of (1) why the collapse of the housing/mortgage market isn't all the fault of heedless borrowers; and (2) why it's likely to spiral into a truly disastrous downturn.

Spoiler: It's the moneychangers' fault.

I'm worried

that Bush will invade Venezuela, not to secure its oil, but its soup.

Just a thought

Since it's clear that Bush intends to hand the Iraq mess off to the next president, thereby allowing his base to claim (when the present debacle turns into an outright disaster) that it wasn't Bush's fault, one would think the Democratic presidential candidates--and, of particular relevance, the pro-war Democrats in C0ngress--would be howling to have the war end now, right now. Otherwise the Democrats, who will control both houses of Congress as well as the White House, will be blamed for the mess in Iraq that will undoubtedly result from our withdrawal.

Indeed, by allowing Bush to continue the war until now, Bush has likely snookered the Democrats already. There's no way the Iraq invasion and occupation will end other than badly, but now that bad end will be on the Democrats' watch. And the Democrats now deserve it.

I keep hoping

that Bush and his minions will become human, will tell us something other than their party line. But no. Bush's speech, following the congressional appearances of General BetrayUs, are strictly par for the course. And now, surprise, surprise, it turns out we're in Iraq for the long haul--the eternal haul. Did you ever think otherwise? If so, you're a fool.

Class warfare is here!

It couldn't be any clearer than what happened today in the financial markets. The Dow Jones index of large corporate stocks has gained almost 150 points (the other indexes have gained too) on news that the amount of new unemployment claims rose by "only" 4,000 in the preceding week. (The Yahoo! headline and the content of its financial article keep changing, but at some point this morning it read "Markets gain on jobs report," the report being of the sixth straight week of increasing jobless claims.)

The reason for the stock market's rise in the face of this news, which in some reports is indicative of an impending recession, is that in the short run the Federal Reserve may discern that because higher interest may slow "economic growth" it should lower its benchmark interest rate, thereby making common stocks more attractive to investors than debt instruments. In other words, what's bad for the workers is good for the investment class.

Marx/Engels/Trotsky were right. The argued for "permanent revolution" that pitted the proletariat against the petty bourgeoisie, unrelentingly opposing the tug of capitalism toward materialism and greed-based culture. Well, we see now how strong that tug is, with its new proponents in the Far East, in Russia and its former satellites, where CD players outnumber books, stiletto heels abound and Burger King rules.

For the stock market to rise because the labor market plummets? What could be a clearer indicator that Karl Marx was right?

How do they do it?

This videoclip from The Daily Show reveals (1) the best critique I've seen of Petraeus' Congressional testimony about the Iraq war, and (2) the genius of the writers and crew of that TV show. They put this segment together within just hours of the general's appearance and although they probably had some lead time (given how predictable was Petraeus' testimony), I gotta say, these folks must really love their work.

Lucky them. Lucky us.

I'm curious

Your thoughts on this story? And while you're at it, check out the Comments.