Why didn't I think of that?

If John McCain is eligible to be elected president because, having been born on a US Navy base in Panama, he was born on "US soil," then the US Navy base at Guantanamo, Cuba, is US soil too, and the prisons there are subject to the laws and constitution. Thus, the indefinite imprisonment without charge and trial is illegal under the Bill of Rights, as much there as if it were taking place in Santa Barbara, CA.

The fine print

Ya know, sometimes you've gotta read to the bottom of those bland newspaper articles to get the gist. Like this one that talks about the greater intensity and turnout of Democrats in the primary contests throughout the country.

Second from the last graph, as counterpoint to the Democrats' enlistment of new voters, the Republicans offer this effort in Ohio's upcoming primary:

"Maggie Nafziger, the county GOP executive director, says the database used to target such voters includes things like applications for licenses to carry a concealed weapon.
'I can find the answers to those questions on anyone in Ohio,' Nafziger tells CNN. 'Then we go after them.'"

Life's a bitch

Especially if you're hard of hearing, elderly and wearing a bulky jacket in the winter in Baghdad.

Back to the drawing board

Just last week, pundits, echoing Bush and McCain, reported that Iraq had met one of the important political "benchmarks" by adopting a plan for elections of provincial governments. Well, not so fast. Apparently, the triumvirate of something called the "presidential council," consisting of three men, a Kurd, and Sunni and a Shiite, who were required to approve the measure, didn't. And not on some insubstantial ground: there was disagreement about the power of the national government, particularly when it comes to firing the heads of the regional governments. It wasn't certain when or if these differences would be overcome, the measure having been sent back to the Iraqi parliament for further process, and it's likely that the delay will mean that the scheduled provincial elections, set for October 1, won't take place.

The Bush administration's cavalier reaction: "That's democracy." My reaction: Meanwhile our troops and treasure are being wasted.

Worst of both worlds

Now the "s" word--stagflation--has replaced recession as the most worrisome economic prospect. I remember those dog days. The slow economy, coupled with increasing prices, meant that the idea of lowering interest rates to spur the economy would trigger an inflationary spiral, so there was nothing to be done to stop the ongoing quarters of zero economic growth. Are we there yet?

Killing me softly...

So, it turns out that Osama bin Laden was right: We're gonna kill ourselves, with only a little help from our enemies. Indeed, Pogo was right after all.

Oh, damn

It's with sadness that I report that Ralph Nader has decided to run for President again. Sadness because, although I agree with everything he says about the inadequacies of the stated policies of both Clinton and Obama (and a fortiori McCain), the solution is not for him to become a presidential candidate and thereby to weaken his influence, but rather to work with one (or both) of the Democratic candidates toward his ends. Nader is weakening his influence by these repeated candidacies, weakening his image and his legacy as well. Instead of effectively raising his laudable policies into public discourse, he's isolating himself from the electoral process and diminishing them and himself, becoming now a near-ridiculous footnote in history.

In case you forgot

there's still violence aplenty in Iraq. (Scroll to bottom of Dr. Cole's post.)

Update: This year, only 40 Iraqis were suicide-bombed yesterday on their annual pilgrimage to Kerbala, way down from the 150 or so that died last year. Now, that's progress.

Obamamobile

Two weeks ago I fashioned the following bumpersticker for my SUV and pasted it inside the rear window: "This vehicle is a certified Obamamobile." A nice touch, right? And a unique one, too, right? Not so. Today I learned that Ben & Jerry, the ice cream guys, have come up with the same phrase, Obamamobile, and are cruising around in it to drum up votes in Vermont.

So--I'm not crazy. Or all three of us are.

Okay, I admit it

I stole the following observation from one of the commenters (scroll down about two inches below the cited post) in which Bush is quoted as denying that the present imminent recession has anything to do with the massive federal spending on the war in Iraq, but instead attributing it to the housing crunch in the US.

Bush is right about the wrecked economy being attributable to improper housing, namely, having the wrong person in the White House.

We've got a way to go in Iraq

if its citizens can't even agree on the national flag.

MSM no more

Yup, this guy's right. To label the network and most cable news sources the Mainstream Media, MSM, isn't accurate. It's the corporate media, hereinafter CN.

And while I won't go so far as to wipe CNN off the presets on my remote, as has my friend Kyle, I'll watch that channel only for updates of the ongoing, quite suspenseful, Democratic primary race.

In case you're counting

here's a tabulation (an estimate, only, but an informed one) of the Democratic delegate tally, updated automatically every minute by CBS News. BTW, with his victory in yesterday's Maine caucuses, Obama now leads Clinton by three delegates, even including Clinton's lead in endorsement-announced "superdelegates."

He doesn't think about winning the Nobel Prize

and other insights, from an interview of the writer, Philip Roth.

A rarity on the Internet...

A must-see video. (2 minutes)

Not with a bang, but a simper

So this is how the Democratic presidential nominating process will end: in the back rooms of the convention in Denver. One room will be where the credentialing committee (which I understand is made up of three former members of Bill Clinton's administration) will decide whether/how to give voting power to delegates from Florida and Michigan--delegates that Billary received the majority of in primary voting that wasn't supposed to count due to those states' violation of the Democratic National Committee's rules against too-early primaries; and the other room where the hundreds of "super delegates" determine who they're going to cast their votes for.



Some of the latter will likely be swayed by which candidate has won the most delegates in the various primaries and caucuses around the nation. They'll also be swayed by their hunch about which of the two candidates is more likely to beat McCain, and by their sense of which one is more likely to bring more voters to the polls for more local contests. On both these last two items, Obama's the clear winner--and perhaps on the first as well, unless the credentialing committee decides to award to Clinton the bulk of the Michigan and Florida delegates that were chosen in their respective "outlaw" primaries.

Notwithstanding the "reforms" of the 1970's in the delegate-choosing method of the Democrats, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Who's on first?

Remember that report last month about the Iraqi Army (such as it is) cleaning out a "militant Shiite cult" (whatever that is)? Well, maybe all is not as it seems. Surprise, surprise.

What the fuck are we doing in Iraq?

Not black enough?

I think not.

Talk about a grass-roots movement

Check out these signs posted in the windows of Manhattan merchants.

Lest we forget

this date five years ago.

Fun reading, really fun reading

Here's a bullet list of raps against John McCain by a nutzoid arch-conservative. I gotta agree: For the truly insane voter, such as the author of the list, McCain's the devil. If/when he's the Republican nominee, watching the Right devour itself will be great amusement.

McClatchy reports

on an item that's beyond the MSM these days: The spread of insurgent influence in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It's not a pretty picture. It makes one wonder how it can be that John McCain, who has supported every one of Bush/Cheney's failed efforts in the Middle East, can be a viable candidate for President. Could it be that the media--and Republicans--are idiots?

The person who controls admission into Iraq's security forces

is a woman, and a hard-headed one at that. I particularly like the last quotation in the USA Today article.

Reason number ten thousand

to support Barack Obama: Michelle Obama. Princeton grad, Harvard Law, human being.

Look out below!

Here's a quote from the last line of a Forex (foreign exchange) report, which highlighted the first monthly loss of jobs in the US in years, the recent Fed reduction of the prime rate by 1/2 percent and the prospect of more interest-rate decreases to stem the US descent into recession.

"Also worth noting was an announcement from Qatar, which said it was mulling over its currency policy. Qatar’s peg to the dollar has resulted in heavy inflationary pressure given the greenback’s broadbased descent in recent years."

Qatar is our "ally," a major oil-exporting country in the Middle East. If it's thinking about switching from relying on the (petro)dollar as the currency for its oil, and perhaps switching to the euro for its favored indebtedness asset, can other nations be far behind?

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.