Breaking...

Palin answered her first unscripted question!

Meanwhile, the job market...

sinks deeper into the tank.

P.S. I have a good friend who was recently hired. Given the foregoing data, lucky boy!

Absence makes the heart grow absent

I've been away from this blog for a while because I became burned out on politics. Really.

I'm still quasi-burned out, but I do have this assessment of the presidential race: The tide, the ship of state, the momentum--whatever you call it--is turning. The Palin thing is getting old, and, for that matter, has become tainted by such things as truth and sanity. "You can fool some of the people..." etc.

Indeed, as I blogged some time ago, Palin may still turn out to be "the gift that keeps on giving," because we Americans have such a short memory that with five weeks to go until the election (an eternity to a child, or to the American electorate) our good Sarah and her father, John McCain, have finally begun to become exposed for the frauds they are. (In addition to the many revelations about Palin's past and her veracity, check out this scathing comment by a former McCain-supporting reporter for the Washington Post. Ouch!)

So, fellow humans, take heart. Americans may not be as dumb, bigoted and foolish as I think they are.

I'm worried about Obama

Of course I'm worried about his slip in the polls since the Republican Convention, but that's not what I'm talking about here. I'm worried about his various statements and positions since his nomination. He's equivocated about offshore drilling, troop reduction in Iraq, extension of the Bush tax cuts and other facets of what I once believed was his truly progressive agenda. But even these items don't bother me too much--I expected a slide toward the center by the Democratic nominee, it happens every election. What is most troubling so far is his recent concession, in an interview with Bill O'Reilly, that the "surge" has "succeeded beyond our wildest dreams."

What this quote reveals to me about Obama are these things:

1. He's getting sloppy with his language. No matter how conditional and nuanced the remainder of his sentence or paragraph is, this single line has handed McCain a quote that he will hit Obama over the head with continuously from now until November. But that's only my superficial problem with it.

2. He's fallen for the "surge" and "success" definitions of the Bush/Republican regime. If the surge is defined by the limited concept of the infusion of more American troops, and success is defined as merely a decline in the number of Iraqi and American deaths, then the surge has been a success. But what has taken place in Iraq since last winter is much more than increased American troop levels; and the "success" isn't success at all, but wreckage and imprisonment and a deferral of retribution.

First--and before any additional American troops arrived--the Sunnis decided to take American bribe monies and turn on the al-Qaeda cells in Anbar province. This had nothing to do with more American troops, it was a stopgap measure that decreased al Qaeda's killings, but simply increased the power of Sunni tribesmen, to the chagrin of the Shiite leaders in Baghdad.

Second, cities like Fallujah that had been the scene of much violence in the past have been turned into ruined fortresses, devastated by two American assaults and bombings, with berms surrounding them and Identity Cards required for entry, and massive police presence to ensure "peace." In other words, we've made armed camps out of Iraqi towns, and this happened independent of any surge, and in many cases was accomplished before the surge was even announced.

Third, within Baghdad, blast walls and checkpoints and multiple troop stations throughout the city have created Sunni and Shiite ghettos, suppressing violence between the sects, but not extinguishing it. This is not "success" it is deferral.

Finally, in addition to the increased American troop levels, there have been insidious tactics--assassinations, spying, infiltration--used by Shiite supporters of Iran's influence that have caused decrease in violence through outside forces unrelated to the American presence, indeed, antithetical to it. This, plus the injunction by American enemy the cleric al-Sadr, that his militias stand down temporarily, have suppressed violence in the short run only to promise it hereafter.

So--Obama's understanding of what's truly at work in Iraq appears restricted, uneducated--and that's most troubling of all, because that could mean that as president he'd be acting and reacting as unwisely as have America's leaders for the last five years with regard to Iraq, and if so with Iraq, what about the rest of the world? Obama needs to read posts such as this in order to comprehend Iraq's present status, and if he did he'd never use the language of America's leaders and pundits when assessing what's afoot in Iraq.

Wanna make a quick million bucks?

Print up and disseminate a "Trig Palin for President" bumpersticker.

Letter to the editor

Here's a letter to the editor of the SB NewsPress that I submitted this evening. I'll let you know if/when it gets published. (Update: It was published on 9/13/08.)

It began during the 1952 presidential election, when war-hero Eisenhower—“I like Ike”—beat untelegenic Stevenson—sloganless egghead. Next, handsome Kennedy’s appearance in a televised debate, contrasted with stubble-bearded Nixon’s, forecast the result of the 1960 election. By “it” I mean the indisputable fact that many Americans’ choice for president is dictated by commercial television’s superficial, capsulized diagnoses of the candidates’ proclivities rather than by the merits of his/her character and programs.

Sometimes, the outcome results from TV’s characterization of the eventual loser: Goldwater—warmonger; Humphrey—LBJ clone; McGovern, Carter, Dukakis, Mondale—wimps; Dole, Bush I—colorless; Gore—wooden; Kerry—waffler. Other times, it’s based on TV’s casting of the winner: Reagan—trustworthy, affable; Clinton—bright, bubba; Bush II—beer buddy. Occasionally, TV’s negative snapshot of one candidate, coupled with its positive image of the other, results in a landslide, as happened with both of Reagan’s victories.

The upcoming election reveals the frightening culmination of this process. With only weeks to go, it’s been reduced to Obama, newcomer rockstar, versus McCain, war-weathered maverick. Even the veep race has become infected by the image of God-fearing, gun-toting, game-changing Palin.

I fear for our nation, because with all that’s at stake, the many Americans who rely on commercial television for their news and views may once again cast their votes based on electoral information presented by the same folks who peddle beer and pretzels—and presented with the same degree of intelligence, depth and care.

Wanna see something freaky?

Here's a student film from fifty years ago, when I was a teenager. Prescient much?

Now wait a goddam minute

Here's an Associated Press report of Palin's convention speech. It's not labeled an opinion piece, but rather it has two writers' bylines and is carried as a news item. The headline--"Palin Delivers Star-Turning Performance at RNC"--reveals only a smidgeon of how biased the story is. What gives? Since when are AP "reports" of speeches--or of any other event--given such a one-sided slant? Is this a new AP policy, to report opinion as fact?

Meanwhile, back in the battlefields

the slaughter grinds on and on and on.

Just when you thought it was safe

to avoid America becoming a militaristic state, The Pentagon does this.

I told you so

In my novel, Gaviota, the protagonist is tentatively offered a Supreme Court position, but a few days later another, more radical, name is floated by the White House as nominee. Later, it's revealed that the radical was a "Hindy," for the dirigible, The Hindenburg, a trial balloon that was meant to perish, to ease the proposal of our protagonist's nomination.

Now, with the Palin nomination, I've surmised that Rove is using that device to ease the submission of a more mainstream name, and this article reaches the same conclusion.

SOFA, so bad

We've heard a lot lately about how Iraq's officials are demanding "sovereignty" for their airspace and their populace; about how any agreement with the US will involve jurisdiction of Iraq over US military personnel and civilian contractors; and about how there will be a specific timetable for withdrawal of all US troops. But now we hear that this may be bunk, that the real deal is soft on these issues, in particular our troops' withdrawal. Stay tuned.

Piling on Palin

Look, I don't want to be piling on here, but this Sarah Palin thing has the flavor of a Harriet Miers nomination. I mean, sure she's a cutey, and she wears glasses and all, but consider this: The names of the five Huskies in the dog team that she and her husband Todd Palin drove to victory in a local iditarod are Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper and Trig. What silly names for dogs.

Oops, my mistake, my bad. Those are the names of their five children.

Palin?

I'm writing this without the "benefit" of the pundits' (right, left or middle) takes on McCain's pick, but I will admit this: When I heard the last name, I immediately thought of this Palin, and, it turns out, he may have been a wiser choice. At least he has some experience.

This choice, to me, is the death-knell for McCain. It makes the Democratic ticket look staid and solid; it makes the Republican ticket look like a trick, a con, a silly game. Obama suddenly becomes a relative veteran in all fields of governance compared to the heartbeat-away lady from where? I mean, could McCain have picked anyone with less experience governing people than a two-year (the least time anyone can have been governor, as of 2008, given the sequence of elections in this nation) executive of the nation's least-populated and most-irrelevant state? You can't write a less-credible story--Random House would throw your fiction manuscript back over the transom before it even landed on the desk.

Besides the obvious observations--including the one above--I have this thought: Think about those wavering independents. The ones who haven't chosen a party preference because they vote according to policy or personality, not party. Think what this choice tells them. I believe they now see what's afoot. An attempt by the Republican Party to win the White House by whatever means they can, even at the expense of our nation's fate and future. To which I say, Youbetcha--welcome to the real world, finally.

I have this final observation: As tempting as it is to think of this as McCain's "Harriet Miers moment," he's stuck with Palin. He can't back out of this blunder like Bush did with Miers, because he'd risk a McGovern-Eagleton style catastrophe, and undercut his "judgment" maxim. So, McCain is stuck with her for the next two months, and she'll be a gift to the Democrats that keeps on giving.

A new "surge" in Iraq

As the "surge" troops come home, private contractors take their place. Iraq: the war that keeps on giving.

The Iraqi Awakening

is awakening.

So--You thought you were having trouble making ends meet

Try living on a dollar--no, make that a dollar and a quarter--a day.

Just what the US Army needs in Iraq

another--actually, more of the same--public relations operation.

I watched tonight, the first night of the Democratic convention,

and I'm sold, totally sold, a goner, a devotee, a Kool-Aid-sucking, off-on-a-trip-to-some-distant-galaxy-cotravelling spirit. Yup, I'm that sold: Obama for President. Oh, did I mention, it's not Barack? It's Michelle.

For those of you who missed it, check this out and be amazed. And inspired.

Michelle Obama Delivers Keynote Address at DNC Convention

About Biden

On many issues, Biden's okay. He's a white-collar liberal (by which I mean a traditional, not-get-dirty type) on social and economic issues. No problem there. But as to Iraq, and the use of military force generally, Justin Raimondo's comments are, as usual, spot on.

(That website, Antiwar.com, is a great place to visit for one-issue essays. The contributors are of all political stripes, from Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan on the Right, to peacenik lefties. Their common denominator: Abhorrence of war, as immoral and/or as an effective solution to disputes.)

I promise...

This is not a headline from The Onion:

"US puts up bin Laden 'Wanted' posters in Afghanistan."

David Gergen's spot on

Ordinarily, I find Gergen too centrist in his views (he was, after all, an advisor to presidents of both parties), but this article about Obama's need for a "game-changer" presents my views precisely. I hope Obama's reading--and will follow--it, quickly.

John McCain

"The most dangerous man in America."

There's only one word to describe this

"operation" in Diyala Province of Iraq: Fubar.

Remember stagflation?

That's what they called the economic phenomenon, last felt during the 1970's, when prices were soaring while the economy was tanking. I hate to say it, but it's surely coming baaack!

Old news about news

Here's an article that proves its own point: a news story that, woefully belatedly, reports that media reporting of economic news lags behind both economic fact and readership interest in the state of the economy. To which I react: Duh.

I've changed my mind

I previously said I'd leave the US if McCain is elected in November. Instead, I think I'll get me one of these.

And now for some good news

Looks like all those running miles (approximately 32,000 since 1976, and still counting) will stand me in good stead.

How about these stories for irony?

The president of Georgia, having sent to Iraq the largest contingent of soldiers outside of those of Britain and the United States, in order to curry favor with Bush, is now withdrawing its troops because of Georgia's hostilities with Russia. And guess what: Their departure leaves unguarded several border crossings between Iraq and Iran, which the US contends are avenues for smuggling arms into Iraq.

Small world, eh?

And, get this: Iraq's government has okayed its first huge oilfield-development deal with a foreign government, namely, China. I'd love to be a fly on the wall in Cheney's office right now.

"Why McCain May Well Win"

This article by Robert Parry summarizes aptly my feelings about the corporate media and the prospect of the imminent failure of the American experiment in capitalist democracy.

I'll say it again: If McCain wins, I'm outta here.

Below the radar, or off it entirely

It's eight am on Friday, August 8, and already the news that bin Laden's "driver" was given a mere slap on the wrist by way of sentence by the military jury has dropped from the news cycle. The sentence was rendered yesterday, but as of this moment the reports of it aren't shown on the front news pages of Google, Yahoo!, or Reuters.

If he'd gotten life, as was possible, the news would be everywhere. Or am I missing something?

Two clear choices

Okay, I've made up my mind. If McCain is elected, I'm moving to some other English-speaking nation. And if this professor's concept is adopted, I'm moving to some other galaxy.

Nonsense

This long-winded article about a supposed "shift" in US approach to combatting global terrorism is, at best, gobbledigook (sp?) and at worst maddeningly misguided. The piece tries to make some distinction between what the US has wrongheadedly done in the past with what it proposes to do, with equal ignorance, hereafter to "defeat terrorism."

God help us. We're governed by evil idiots. Can't anyone in power see that we're despised because of what we do in the world, and that the only way to quell the hatred the "third world" populations feel for us is to change what we do?

Am I missing something?

Odd, incompetent, or what?

Here's a report of a reaction-test performed by a lab upon 300-plus Americans, using mouse-responses during quick intervals while watching McCain's negative "celebrity" ads about Obama. The lede of the report, which is accurate, states that among Republican viewers, after watching the ads, more reacted negatively toward McCain than reacted positively. The same is true of those viewers who deemed themselves "independent" voters. But what the article fails to state--a remarkable omission, due, probably, to incompetent reporting--is that among the one-third of the viewers who called themselves Democrats, the reaction to the ad was to increase McCain's "favorability," and by a margin similar to that by which McCain's favorability fell among Republicans after viewing the ad.

Does this mean that Democrats are dumber than Republicans and Independents? Or what?

You go, girl

After weeks of silence, she breaches!

Running like crazy?

I've been a jogger/runner for thirty-one years, since 1977, when, after viewing the movie "Rocky," I got semi-serious (actually, delete the "semi") about exercise. Since then, I figure, I've run father than the circumference of Earth (average 20 miles per week, 50 weeks per year, 1000 miles per year for 31 years=31,000 miles).

So now I know why I'm such an ardent Obama supporter. Because I'm smart.

Iraq, uncovered

For those of you who want objective, in-depth coverage of current events in Iraq (and elsewhere in the Middle East), Iraqslogger is an invaluable site. Some of its feature articles are subscription-only, but many of the items aren't, and the links to other sources work well. Of particular merit, I think, are the blogs that are shown along the right-hand column of the home page (scroll down a bit), including the McClatchy blog. It's written by Iraqi reporters for McClatchy, and recall that McClatchy (then Knight-Ridder) was the only mainstream journalism source that presented reports questioning Bush's decision to invade Iraq.

There are other links, too: Iraq business articles, news of political developments throughout the nation (not just Baghdad), US military reports, and so on. It's a good way to satisfy yourself that you're staying abreast of what's happening in the nation we continue to occupy by force of arms.

Texas don't bow to nobody

Not when it comes to killing Mexicans.

(As background, one of my former law partners handled a case that contained this issue: the obligation of state authorities to follow the Vienna Convention by advising arrested foreign nationals of their right to consult their own national representatives before and during trial.)

My reaction to "privatizing" US infrastructure?

I can see it now: McDonald's toll booths, asking if we want fries with that, as we stop-and-go along the 101.

I don't get it, just don't get it

The Iraq war was about oil. No, it was about "democratizing the Middle East." No, it was to "make America secure," or "to get even with Saddam Hussein's attempt on Papa Bush's life," or to "create a legacy for Shrub."

Well, what I don't get is this: Why is it so hard for pundits to realize that even the Bushies are capable of rational thoughts. And the rational thoughts that formed the bases for our invasion and occupation of Iraq are all of the above, plus another compelling one: The NeoCons' desire to make Israel secure from its neighbors' hostile intent.

How hard is it to imagine a bunch of folks--Rummie, Wolfie, Condi, Cheney, Bush, Libby, Addington, and three or four more--seated comfortably in the Oval Office tossing about justifications for the Iraq invasion? Some of them--Wolfie, certainly, and Libby--may have harbored the NeoCons' basic reason most dearly; others--Cheney, Condi--the oil rationale; others--Bush, for sure--the legacy and the get-even justification. And all of them would have wrapped their reasoning in the "democratization" rubric and the US-security b.s. as cover for their underlying wants.

I'm certain Alexander wanted both land and trade routes, the Brits both goods and spoils, the Spaniards both gold and territory. I mean, we humans are complex enough to think more than one thought at a time, right?

So, why did the Bush administration attack Iraq? For all of the above reasons, and perhaps for others that I'm not diabolical enough to imagine.

"It's quarter to three..."

One problem with battling a bit of a flu bug is that I find myself going to bed early (around eight pm), only to awaken about now--two-thirty am--and needing some distraction before I can return to sleep. On the first Friday of each month such a distraction is, of course, the release of the previous month's job-creation figures by the US Department of Labor, which is scheduled for 8:30 am, EDT, or about two hours from now.

As you doubtless know, Bush's "strong economy" has produced net job losses for the last several months, an economic factor which, along with many more, indicate that the US economy is in the ditch. Some of the other indicators: record prices for gasoline, crude oil and oil-based products--everything from plastics to perfumes; increasing food prices; loss of high-skilled jobs in manufacturing, aviation and the like, producing a declining wage base; tightening of credit due to loss of confidence (as well as cash) by lenders, complicated by the slumping housing market which has cost homeowners trillions of dollars of wealth and dried up their source of borrowing. And on and on.

And so, it is with some trepidation that I await (although I may not be able to stay awake until then) the upcoming release of US job-creation numbers. It's predicted that there will be a net job loss in the range of 50,000. If it's substantially more than that, it's time to learn Spanish, bigtime.

Update: 51,000 lost jobs. The seventh consecutive monthly loss. Unemployment rate jumps to 5.7%, which is going to frighten investors, I predict, when the market opens in an hour.

2.3 million American jobs lost to China 2001-2007

Heckuva job, Bushie.

I've got a bad, bad cold, and so...

I'm abed and websurfing and have re-encountered this site, which is a gem. I recommend it for all curious folks, whether or not their noses are running constantly.

Obama at Chicago Law

This NYT piece about Barack Obama's law-teaching experience is quite interesting. I get the impression that the author was seeking "an answer" about Obama--his leanings, his legal sentiments--and was frustrated by not being able to pin down a precise definition. Recall, the University of Chicago--one of the fine law schools in the nation--has historically been known as a "conservative" institution, unlike Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Georgetown and most others in the top tier; and so I don't doubt that Obama's fellow professors and his students might not be able, or willing, to stake out a defined position about the man's teachings.

Indeed, because I was so immersed in my own law-school experience, as a student and editor, a graduate student, then later as a teacher of legal writing, I found this presentation of Obama's experience intriguing. I would love to have had him as a student, would love to have taken a course from him, would love to talk law with him, anytime, anywhere. In fact, if anything, this article makes me want Obama to lead our nation more than ever.

The future of Iraq

Here's an article about the US Air Force role in Iraq, a role that will evolve (increase) when the number of our combat troops is drawn down. (Don't think for a minute that whoever the President is, he will allow Iraq to fall into anti-American chaos.)

And if it struck you (as it did me) that our Air Force's involvement was problematic, check out the last two paragraphs of the article, which demonstrate that we'll be occupying a "sovereign" Iraq forever, but largely, hereafter, from the sky.

That was then, this is now

What a great time to be a renter, when home prices--and hence values--are dropping at a record rate. I get a kick out of reflecting on Bush's constant speechifying a few years ago about how home ownership was increasing in America, a phenomenon, we now realize (and some of us did then) was the direct result of financing scams that have since collapsed.

And then there's this story. Says it all, doesn't it?

A daily read

I receive by early-morning email this daily newsletter. I find it's an effective filter of the leading news stories, each with a link to the original publication, and unlike other sources it's not overbearingly extensive.

Today's news is so bad, it's frightening. Increases in numbers of cars in India; China's new insistence on driving bigger autos ("size matters in China"); a pullback of exports of oil by Mexico to US refineries--all driving up the price of gasoline here to levels that won't recede substantially, ever again. A failure of our "anti-terror" efforts in Pakistan, the ongoing frauds committed by private contractors in Iraq, the absurd show trials in Guantanamo. And these stories, mind you, are all from mainstream media sources, and I haven't included a mass killing in the US and a bombing spree in India.

"I read the news today...Oh, boy."

Deckchair arrangement

Yup--Those ones on the Titanic. That's what was happening before John Conyers' House Judiciary Committee hearings today at which a few of the most vociferous Bush-impeachment oracles were allowed a momentary public (C-Span) forum. And then, of course, quick closure.

Okay, Bush will get away with it. But didn't Caligula, didn't King George III, didn't, in fact, Hitler? I mean, sure, he had to kill himself to avoid humiliation, but he was in a palsied state, hidden in a bunker. A quick bullet, a bit of gasoline with his mistress in a shallow grave, and outtahere!

No, except for Nixon--who faced a negative Congress in a negative time--our system doesn't work. Nor do most systems. And, after all these decades--centuries, really--of decadence, I'm not sure it's even the best system there is. America, my country, you suck.

Have I sold out, am I getting old, or am I finally getting it?

I agree with articles such as this one that complain that Obama's views on various matters--including, most troublingly, the "war on terror" concept--aren't "progressive," in the sense that they seem to be in the same mold as the views of those who got us here. I mean, the idea that we've got to "make war" on all sorts of things--some cadres of bad guys in the desert, in the hills of Columbia, at the borders of America; even on poverty and drugs--is a monstrous way to view the world and the human condition.

But that's whaddup these days. The media, the mainstream of American thought, the vast majority of politicians--everything--cast our difficulties in such terms. So--what's Obama to do: talk like seers such as Nader and Kucinich, from the fringe of politics, and forever remain there? Or must he--and we as Obama's supporters--talk the talk f0r now, in order to walk a different path in the future?

Blunder or lie?

Much has been made of McCain's erroreous attribution of the success of the Sunni "awakening" to the "surge" in US troops in Iraq. It is called a blunder, a mistaken timeline, in which he states that the Sunni's actions against al-Qaeda were made possible by the increase in US troops. Of course, this is false, since the surge didn't begin until the "awakening" was well underway.

Is this a miscue by McCain? Is it a mis-recollection? Or is McCain simply lying?

Another question: Why doesn't the corporate media ask that last question?

Amazing, absolutely amazing

Obama takes the world tour that McCain challenged him to do. Obama is well received at his various stops, creating news stories wherever he goes, generating favorable coverage here in the US and around the globe. And so--what becomes the storyline for all this? Of course, it's "Obama's coverage in the media is unfairly biased in his favor."

Karl Rove's maxim: Attack your opponent's strength (in 2000 it was that Gore's too intellectual and a wussie; in 2004 it was that Kerry's a fraudulent soldier), so that whenever his positive message is presented, it's colored negatively by the tag-along story. From now on in the 2008 campaign, not only will the media be mindful of, and resistant to, favorable coverage of Obama; the audience will too. The positive message will carry the negative message along with it.

And you don't think Rove's a genius?

Get out your statute books

It's time to learn California's voting laws--sufficient to establish residency in San Francisco in time for November's referendum on this vital question.

Frightening

I just read an observation (a comment on the BBC website) that chilled me to the bones: "Remember, the American voters were imbecilic enough to re-elect Bush in 2004 by a larger margin than they elected him four years earlier; and this after he'd displayed unsurpassed incompetence and arrogance for his entire first term. Don't be surprised, therefore, if they demonstrate that same idiocy in 2008 by electing McCain to continue Bush's presidency. Someone once said 'stupid is as stupid does.' I'm not certain what that means, but let's hope it doesn't mean McCain will likely win election."

Letter to the editor

To the editor:

Here's a letter I wrote yesterday to the SB News-Press. I'll let you know if it gets published.

Update: It was published in the News-Press on Saturday, 7/11/08.

Let's see... The majority of Iraqis want the US to end its occupation of their nation. The "sovereign" government of Iraq demands a timeline for our departure. The strong majority of Americans desire an orderly withdrawal of US troops, as does the presumptive Democratic nominee for President.

So, one is compelled to ask: Who is it that continues to insist that our troops remain in Iraq, with continuing exposure to violent death and injury due to hostile fire, and further alienating Iraqis and incurring the disdain of peoples around the world?

The answer is of course obvious. There are three powerful people--three men--whose continued militant defiance flaunts the urgent demands of billions of other citizens of the planet: Bush, Cheney and their desired
replacement--indeed, their surrogate--Senator John McCain.

A day in the life

of a student in Baghdad. What misery, with razor wire and concrete barriers, hour-long carpools to take an entrance exam, armed protection at the test site. This is Bush's legacy: a wrecked nation.

On the question of the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq

Another country heard from.

Movie plots

Something completely different. In this report of audience and critical reaction to a mid-movie plot twist in the recently-released "Hancock," the writer lists other movies with significant twists. Many are my favorites, like "The Usual Suspects," "Chinatown" and, of course, "Psycho."

Your favorites?

I have drunk the Kool-Aid

The media--leftist, rightist and corporate (the latter two being duplicative)--have struck a chorus recently criticizing Obama for "moving to the right" or "becoming nuanced" in his pronouncements about the Iraq occupation, the FISA amendments, gun control and so forth. Indeed, I've joined the chorus in my private discussions. But now, on reflection, I've decided: I'm supporting Obama, ardently, by activism as well as monetary contributions to his campaign. He may not be perfect in his positions, maybe not in his person, either. But he surely is the finest candidate for president that has come along in a long time, perhaps in my lifetime. I've decided I'll forgive him everything (well, almost everything) between now and November, and go to the barricades for his election. Why? Because I must.

I'm in good company

I've always--that is, since I was socially aware--believed that socialism is the proper method by which to organize modern society. That is, I've never fully supported a rigorous communism, but I'm also skeptical of the benefits of unbridled capitalism. It's good to know I'm not alone in these beliefs, and that a man with a bright mind agrees with me, and for largely the same reasons.

After all those negative signs about the economy

it's heartening finally to see some good news.

It's not just US

the economies of the entire world's nations are crumbling.

At the bottom of the article, the suggestion is made that our fellow "rich" nations will express concern about the weak US dollar, namely, that it's causing the rise in oil prices, priced of course in "petrodollars." Of course, that's true, and in part explains the increasing price of oil. But what can the US do? If it decides to "strengthen" the dollar by, for example, increasing interest rates on borrowing, its economy, already in the tank will drop even deeper. If it does nothing, inflation--derived from high oil prices, mostly--will continue to spiral out of control.

Thanks, George.

Where's the outrage?

The stories of two MS patients.

Rebuilding the world

I just watched some mid-range State Department official under the Bush Administration on C-Span. He was talking about supporting and rebuilding Pakistan so that it would be able to suppress terrorists in its midst. Pakistan? Afghanistan? Iraq? Isn't this rebuilding-the-planet thing getting a bit old, and expensive?

Nader's remarks about Obama

As a die-hard Ralph Nader fan--I voted for him in 2000 and don't blame him, not one whit, for Gore's losing the election--I'm compelled to say that Nader's statements today about "white guilt" and Obama's failure to address inner-city poverty issues are, to be generous, poorly articulated. I agree with the thrust of Nader's intent, which was, I think, to point out that Obama's positions as the Democratic nominee for President are no different from the articulations of such nominees in the past, namely, nonthreatening pap about hope and change and equality. If Nader had stopped there, I'd agree wholeheartedly, because I've now come to see Obama as "merely a politician," whereas I'd heretofore seen him as a transformative historical figure.

But my support of Obama's candidacy isn't out of "white guilt," nor do I think Obama has appealed to that. True, he hasn't adopted the rhetoric of "black candidates" who've championed the economic and social plight of lower-income, city-dwelling blacks. But he's not running for Congress from a ghetto district, he's running for President of all Americans, and his rhetoric reflects that. I believe Obama's the best candidate in a long time--perhaps since our nation's founding--from the standpoint of representing the interests and aspirations of poor and middle-class Americans. And that's not because I feel guilty, but because I feel, finally, vindicated and hopeful that at long last our politics and our culture can address that burning issue.

Nader's remarks were, I think, too abrasive a means to convey--to remind us--that is that we still have a long way to go before any candidate may point out, as directly as Nader repeatedly does, what ails America--its rampant consumerism, its evil gap between rich and poor, its corporate-dominated culture and economic system. John Edwards (whom Nader endorsed) said some of these things, and look where that got him.

So, I agree with much of the content of what Nader said about Obama's campaign and about the state of the major parties' nomination process generally. I just wish he'd said it with a bit more aplomb.

A repeat of a story

I seem to recall blogging about San Francisco's referendum to name its sewage plant after Bush, but this article is so amusing, as are the comments, that it deserves another post.

("He's done so much for the affluent that he deserves to have effluent named after him." Priceless.)

What a piece of crap

This article by AP writers, including its headline, is so misleading as to be fraudulent. When--not until the middle of the article--the poll numbers are finally disclosed, it may be seen that the difference in responders' attitudes toward the candidates' handling of the Iraq occupation isn't dramatic at all, the difference of six percentage points (39% to 33%). The entire article, however, is canted toward the headline's assertion that McCain is seen as more capable of handling Iraq, even though the percentages don't bear that out, less than half of the responders being of that opinion.

That's biased reporting if I ever saw it.

What's worse than recession?

What we're entering now: Stagflation.

I hate when that happens

A pro-Coalition city councilman opens fire on American troops, killing two. Will the corporate media carry this story?

The "Brandeis brief"

In law school, we learned that Justice Louis Brandeis, one of the most potent minds ever to sit on the Supreme Court, would buttress his legal arguments with factual recitations--extensive statistical data that overwhelmingly bore out his opinions.

Compare that to Scalia's recent factual fart.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marjorie-cohn/scalia-cites-false-inform_b_108682.html

Says alot about the state of the Supreme Court, and for that matter, the state of the nation, eh?

Now tell me something I don't know

about network television coverage of the US occupation of Iraq.

Turn out the lights

the party's over--so says a Texas Congressman, whose remarks about light bulbs are right on. Video.

The state of Iraq

Here's Juan Cole's calculation of what the last twenty years have done to Iraq. Read it and weep.

Doing the math

Here's a succinct digest of the status of the likely Electoral College breakdown, at least as the present polling numbers reveal. Conclusion: Webb from Virginia for veep; and we all travel to Nevada to work for Obama this fall.

A nation of impoverished sheep

If these figures don't cause you to leap over the barricades, what will?

I'm in mourning

but not for Russert. For someone really important.

A quiz

Which is the more amazing development on this Monday?:

Al Gore endorses Barack Obama for president.

Tiger Woods wins playoff to capture US Open golf tournament.

Answer: Neither.

My reaction to this headline?

"Bush Contemplates Writing His Memoir":

LOL

All's fair in war

In Iraq, even the children are up in arms.

"It is a good day to die"

One of the finest lines of movie dialog--from "Little Big Man"--seems apt to me this evening, as I read this sad report about the effects of climate change in Africa. Better to bail out now, I say, than to await the catastrophe that will inevitably envelop the rest of humanity.

But then, I think, what about my child, and her child? Shouldn't I hang around as long as I can, and do as much as I can to help them avoid what my generation--I--have wrought?

And then I think this: I have no choice. I'll live as long as I live, and I'll do as much as I can.

WTF????

The Chief Judge of the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit--the boss of the largest federal circuit in the US, and the position of the federal appellate judge for whom I labored as his only lawclerk for more than a year in 1966-67--has a website with pornographic photos?

I cannot be so. Right?

CBS? NBC? ABC? CNN? MSNBC?

None of the above. In order to learn of the extent of graft and corruption and lost billions of dollars in Iraq, it takes the BBC to uncover and report it.

Just so you know...

Here's a link to a succinct recital of the military/insurgent/violent acts in Iraq and Afghanistan, assembled from daily reports "on the ground." Not a pretty picture. I've referred to it earlier, but because the corporate media has ceased reporting the ongoing violence in our two "wars," I thought it necessary to mention the site again. Whoever coined, "Out of sight, out of mind" sure knew what he was saying.

Idiots, idiots

This is a rant, so don't expect links to sites or cites to authorities. Just my own authority as a student of political science in college, a student of politics since college, and a student of current affairs.

Underway--without much mention in the US, but under intense protest in Iraq--are negotiations, soon to be completed, of an agreement between the US and Iraq that governs our forces in that country. There are provisions about our troops' presence, their powers and immunities, their relationship to Iraq and the US, and, of course, the bases they inhabit and the weapons they use. It's a detailed exposition of this country's military, economic and political future in the Middle East, set forth in a binding agreement.

Many Iraqis are protesting such a deal as infringing on their sovereignty, and as not within the power of the present (puppet) administration of Iraq. They insist that any such agreement be subject to a national referendum, which the Iraq administration is resisting, knowing that the deal will be defeated if subjected to a popular vote.

Meanwhile, here in the US, there's nothing. Yes, there are some spineless protest letters from Senators, addressed to the White House, insisting that there be no provisions in such an agreement obligating the US to intervene militarily on Iraq's behalf--that would require a treaty, the Senators say, which would be subject to Congressional approval. But I haven't heard or seen a peep from the media about the incipient deal, even though it could cost America billions of dollars and countless lives, for an indeterminate period in the future, certainly well into the term of the next administration.

Wake up, America! Wake up, media! Wake up, Congress! The monsters who brought you this evil war and occupation are attempting to bind you to continue it indefinitely, to fix it so that no matter who takes over the administration they will be hamstrung by this odious, horrific deal. And, if you don't think it's odious and horrific, here's a brief exposition of its terms, as presently on the table.

You know you've backed the right candidate

when he and his wife greet each other at their moment of triumph with a fist bump.

Spineless Anglos

Ya know, when I watched Lawrence of Arabia for the tenth time, it finally occured to me: The Arabs are finer folk than we occupiers, at least they are finer when it comes to their reaction to invasion and occupation of their lands.

Well, it turns out that eighty years after Lawrence, they're still a grander folk than we. They, unlike placid Americians, demand that our occupation cease, while we do nothing to end it.

What's the appropriate adage?

The Pentagon's answer to keeping watch on the conduct of private companies that are performing military and quasi-military work in Iraq is to outsource the monitoring of those companies to a private company.

Is this a lunatics/asylum circumstance, or a fox/henhouse situation, or what, exactly?

We have met the enemy and he is us

In yesterday's 60-Minutes segment about the Army's new toy--a ray gun that strikes and momentarily disables humans from hundreds of yards away with an extreme blast of heat--the device was tested on "protesters." And, boys and girls, guess what the signs held by some of these protesters read. Yup, you guessed it: "Peace Not War."

Fair game, don't you think?

The trouble with growing older

is that I probably won't be around to learn definitively whether future historians--those who after all these years have finally concluded that the Bay of Tonkin Resolution that dragged the US into war with North Vietnam was based on falsified information--will establish as truth the fact that the Bush administration misled the American people into invading Iraq. As the list of those who so contend grows--the latest being Scott McClellan--I'm hopeful the truth will emerge sooner rather than later, especially when world leaders, like Australia's new PM, appear to adopt that position.

I won't be satisfied with a "he-said, she-said" stalemate; I want a firmly established line. Trouble is, that usually takes at least a generation to materialize, and I don't have the time.

Even if we don't care

about our long-term occupation of Iraq, at least they do.

In case you missed it

Here's a 1956 movie about the wonders of Saran Wrap. It's only 21 minutes long, but once it loads you can click the advance bar forward, because I gotta tell ya, it's awful viewing.

Outrage is too mild a word

to describe my reaction to this.

The last straw

The Iraqi "government" is at best incompetent, but they're not this dumb, are they? I mean this summer their people can survive without clean water, without electricity, without security. But without soccer?

Heavy reading

Here's a detailed article about the progress (meaning progression) in Iraq over the five-plus years of the US invasion and occupation. Its conclusion is not comforting; but its perspective is sound. (pdf)

Hillary Clinton is so over

after her "I'm hanging in there until Obama's assassinated" remark. I mean, it's not just tasteless and stupid and callous, but given the color of her opponent's skin, it's pretty fuckin' frightening.

Question one: Is this the person you want picking up the telephone at three a.m.?

Question two: Imagine if McCain had said something like that. The entire election would be over, now, in May.

It's not the crime...

it's the cover-up.

Update: According to the same source, the magic date for the release of McCain's medical records, previously fixed for May 15, has been moved--to tomorrow.

Don't hold your breath.

Dear editor

Herewith is a "letter to the editor" of the SB News-Press that I emailed this evening. I'll let you know if it gets publishsed.

Remember those phrases from previous presidential elections?: “Give us a choice, not an echo!” and “Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum!” Those were the outcries of many American voters when the candidates of the two major political parties didn’t seem to differ much on policy, purpose or practice.

Of course the candidates claimed they differed greatly, but we knew better. No matter which of them prevailed, America would stay on the same course, a course it pursued with fervor and certainty except when the interruptions of FDR—with later assistance by JFK and (yes) LBJ—altered America’s course for our common good. But in the four-plus decades since the last true “choice not an echo”—embodied in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965—we’ve not really had much choice.

Well, now we do. As Barack Obama’s supporters chant, “Not This Time.” Not this time will Americans be cowed by fear of adversaries, by fear of the unknown, by fear of the future. This time the choice is between courage and confidence on the one hand, and fear and cowardice on the other. The choice is between offering America’s outstretched arms to the world’s poor and needy, to the despoiled planet, to its global adversaries; or simply continuing to train America’s armaments against perceived enemies while ignoring the true causes of the planet’s ills.

It’s a choice I, and, let us hope, a majority of Americans welcome.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with Tyler

My stimulus

Okay, I got my rebate check for $300 (single filer with little income last year). So here's what I did with it. I cashed it, put the three hundred (four fifties, five twenties) in my wallet and walked out into the world feeling not a bit stimulated. Certainly not wealthier, and, as it happens, not a bit inclined to stimulate the American economy.

But it so happened that my running shoes had run out of bounce, and so I did buy a new pair of New Balance shoes on sale at Big 5. Price (a clearance price): $39.00. And, of course, made in China.

What have we become?

The world's warden?

Takin' names

and kickin' ass.

One nation under two laws

Who rules Iraq? Just ask this detainee.