Lest we forget

Professor Juan Cole reminds us of ten fallacies that are being touted by the Republicans about the history and present state of the nation of Iraq. Good job, Juan.

I can't imagine a better gig

than writing things like this for The Onion.

Some doggerel by me

Sic Transit Abhoria


Oh, how deeply Righties hate him.
In transition, they berate him,
To Marx and Lenin they equate him,
Quoting Preacher Wright verbatim.

Oh, how much it must frustrate ’em
That they can’t investigate him,
That impeachment won’t await him,
’Til they first inaugurate him.

Not so fast...

All's not quiet in Iraq. Not by a long shot.

Every once in a while

something is said that restores one's faith in America. The latest: Obama's response to an AP question about whether he'd be spending much time in Chicago once he moved into the White House. His answer (scroll to bottom of article) : "My Kennebunkport is on the South Side of Chicago." I never thought I'd hear those words, ever.

This is nuts

I mean, by now we've come to expect the wackos in the Bush administration to support something as crazy as allowing the carrying of loaded concealed weapons in our national parks, but buried in the middle of the article is the observation that fifty US Senators, including nine Democrats, support the rule change. When the gun lobby becomes that influential, it's time to take over the government and start again.

The party's over...

when the Tonga line leaves the dance floor.

Bush isn't so dumb, part two.

He and his religious-freak cohorts had this in mind, too.

Letter to the editor

Here's a letter to the editor of the SB News-Press that I emailed today. I'll let you know if/when it gets published.

I know that to forgive is divine, but gosh it’s hard to watch this spate of Bush exit interviews on TV without hurling something at the screen. Take the recent interview on ABC: a cozy fireside chat featuring Bush, seated beside Laura on a couch, with Charlie Gibson tossing him puffballs about “regrets” or “mistakes” during his presidency. In reply, Bush—wearing his slacker grin—rues “intelligence errors” about WMD in Iraq, while sympathizing with those who died on that account; and later, when asked about the tanking economy, explains that it was caused by actions of others: lax regulators, greedy bankers, a “housing bubble”—anything but the malfeasance of his administration. Indeed, throughout the entire interview, Bush consistently resorted to that common responsibility-shirking device of the passive voice: “Mistakes were made.”

If only once—and when better than now, finally?—Bush would acknowledge where, in our democracy, the buck stops. But no. Instead, he uses these lame-duck interviews to attempt to rewrite history in his favor: forgetting the Katrina disaster; omitting his failure to be alert to terrorist attack and to capture Osama bin Laden; failing to mention his kicking the UN inspectors out of Iraq when they were consistently reporting an absence of WMD; refusing to include, as a direct cause of the nation’s economic collapse, his own persistent demands that banking and lending regulations be eased.

The process of redemption begins with assuming responsibility. If Bush should ever do so, then I’ll consider forgiving him. Perhaps.

Update: It was published on December 8, 2008.

Bush isn't so dumb...

He planned this all along.

WTF?

What are we doing in Iraq? What are we doing in Afghanistan? What are we doing with military bases in The Phillipines, in Korea, in Germany, in Greenland, in Guam, in Australia, for God's sake?

What are we doing?

No rest for the weary

Once again, peacenik/Libertarian Justin Raimondo is right on. From the look of them, Obama's foreign-policy decisions may be effectuated by the same old forces, and they're not looking good.

Victory in Iraq

It's clear from the terms of the "Status of Forces Agreement" that may (or may not) be accepted by Iraq's parliament that the US caved in so utterly that the SOFA has as much veracity as did Nixon's "peace with honor" speeches in the months before the helicopters lifted the last Americans off the roof of the US embassy in Saigon.

Not for the faint of heart

is this photo and essay about post-surge Iraq.

Just in case you weren't certain...

the US and UK invasion and occupation of Iraq were illegal under international law.

Advice for Obama

First, Don't pick Hillary for State. If you're leaning toward establishment types, choose Richardson for State, Hillary for AG (assuming she'd take it). Hillary would be great in the latter role--she can be a bulldog, a law-enforcer, bigtime--and from there she can go on the Supreme Court (Barack, you can make that part of the deal).

Second, make some announcements next week, then dribble them out in the succeeding weeks to keep the pot boiling. You're risking being thought of as "political" by maintaining this hands-off position during the transition. That is, some of us are beginning to feel that you're allowing Bush to stew in his juice as the economy implodes and the wars drag on, rather than doing something--anything--about these things. I mean, what about some specific proposals for the upcoming lame-duck session of Congress?

The words "hope" and "change" are more than campaign slogans: They're cries for help. Respond, Barack. Help us.

For a few laughs...

check out Cavett on Palin.

An uplifting film

Check out "Tony."

Now I know why I voted for this guy...

Check out this 2004 interview with Obama about his faith.

From the heart, and the heartland

America's prince of radio has spoken: Obama is one cool dude.

Reflections

Well, it's over. The election was long enough ago for some thoughts, as opposed to reactions, to come to my conscious. (It helped that in the interim I had two long drives over the Sonora/Mojave deserts, with Dylan on the stereo.)

First, the letdown. I had so much energy invested in the campaign and outcome that no amount of celebratory sensation could dissipate it, and so, like a balloon at the completion of its deflation, my body/mind sagged and shriveled. I spent the morning after the election watching postmortems on television and found myself barely able to pack my car to get out of the Las Vegas motel before checkout time. Then, while driving toward Tucson with no radio reception in my car, I listened to folk music CDs and got a dose of sobriety, realizing that we'd done this before: Forty-five years earlier, in August 1963, when Martin intoned about the dream, and we felt, for a few moments, that it was possible to reach the mountaintop. Well, we didn't then, and I felt unsure--sad, wise, conditioned--knowing how easily dreams can lead to rude awakenings.

Second, the resolve. I visited my daughter and her little daughter in Tucson and realized, fully, how deep a debt I've incurred by being lax in my contributions to the world they'll inhabit when I'm gone. I decided I'd better get busy cleaning up the place--its environment, its populace, its psyche.

Third, the calm. Really, I thought as I drove back to SB from Tucson, there's nothing magic in my revelations. What needed to be done has always been there, right in front of me: It's the next right thing, just as I'd always known.

Who'dathunkit?

She tries to hide it, but it's obvious: Condi's in love.

From Vegas with love

I'm in Las Vegas tonight. I spent a couple of days here during the Kerry campaign, and a couple of days here a month ago for Obama. Now, with the 2008 presidential election looming, I came over yesterday and today did eight hours of canvassing, with tomorrow, election day, being a critical GOTV ("get out the vote") day. We're assembling early on the north side of town (I mistakenly have taken a motel down near the strip, and so have a twenty-minute drive out to the site) where we'll get our marching orders from the incredibly competent, organized young folks who are Obama's ground staff. Today's canvassing consisted of going to various gated communities, spurring Democrats to make sure to vote, hanging door-hangers with election-site information on the homes where there was no one home, and leaving generalized information in the case of the homes of the less-committed. All according to perfected computerized charts and maps given to us by the aforementioned staff. Bottom line: Out of the fifty-plus homes we were told to visit, we perhaps caused two or three people to vote for Obama who might otherwise have slacked off.

My canvass-mate was a sweet, 18-year-old black girl who'd taken the day off from school to do this for Obama, after, she said, having "blown it off so many times before." The irony is that on this day when she'd decided finally to do it, Michelle Obama was attending her high school for a campaign appearance, so this task caused her to miss both that and a day's worth of classes.

Damn...

I wish I'd said this.

A dangerous game

This lengthy WaPo essay details the various steps Bush has taken, and may take, as he slides out the back door of the White House. Most dangerous: his latest expansion of US military power, to include military actions within foreign nations, allied with us and not, to "protect our interests." This is tantamount to a worldwide arms intrusion, casting aside all restraint on American aggression.

It's worse than an "October surprise," it's an eternal, international nightmare.

Can you imagine...

the level of news coverage this event would have raised in the US?

The unreported agony that is Iraq grinds on and on.

Another letter to the editor of the SB NewsPress

It's a shortie, in text and thought, but I couldn't resist. I'll update if it gets published.

To the editor:

Okay, I get it that it's sexist to mention, in the context of Sarah Palin's candidacy for Vice President, anything about "lipstick on a pig." But what I don't get is why, then, the Republican National Committee has deemed it proper to spend $150,000 on her wardrobe? Am I missing something?

Update: It was published in the News-Press, Sunday, October 26, 2008.

Don't ever say I didn't tell you

about this means of escaping the collapse of the American empire: Move to Sweden.

Surprise, surprise

With all the publications tripping over themselves to endorse Barack Obama lately, I've decided to join in: I favor Obama for president in 2008!

For a handy explication of the differences--sometimes more subtle than I'd like--between Obama's and McCain's views on American foreign policy, check out this essay. As to domestic policy, no contest.

I'm no economist

but I did take the course in college, using Samuelson's text; and I majored in Political Science and have followed politics and law all my life. And so, when the Nobel committee selects Paul Krugman for its annual award for economics, I know what it means: The United States government has been out of step with the economics of the civilized world since--when?--since Reagan.

Oh, wouldn't it be loverly...

If the US couldn't find a way to extort a Status of Forces Agreement out of Iraq's government before the expiration of its UN mandate on December 31. The US would then be, without any cover of international law or UN approval, an illegal occupier of a foreign nation. Any killings by US troops thereafter, I believe the law would say, would be murder; and those who ordered the occupation would, one would think, be culpable, just as culpable as Hitler was for the deaths that occured during Gemany's illegal occupations during WWII.

I'd paddle to the Hague to be inside the courtroom to watch the trial of Bush/Cheney on those charges. Hell, I'd even resuscicate my dusty old shingle if there was a one-in-a-hundred chance I could participate in the trial, if only to fill the prosecutor's water cup during final argument.

A new epithet for Bush

Comrade.

It could get ugly

I'm not talking about the tenor of the presidential campaign, which we all knew would get ugly about this time in the cycle. I'm talking about the election result itself. This composite polling site already (as of today, that is) has Obama winning the electoral-college vote, with 296 "solid" or "leaning" states; and of the few tossups, Obama's leading in most of them, too. He could end up with 350 electoral votes or more, losing only the deep south, the bible belt and the redneck west (plus Arizona, McCain's home state). In that process, it might be added, he could bring with him enough Senators and Representatives to hand control of Congress to the Democrats.

How would life feel if this happened? Wait one month and see.

Read it and weep

Can we ever live like this again?

Break out the big lipstick

This is one big pig.

Lipstick on a pig

I gotta tell ya, those add-ons (increased FDIC insurance, some accounting changes for banks, tax credits for environmental energy sources) do nothing to enhance the basic flaw in the bailout package, namely, that it's a top-down Band-Aid of the problem, and it simply hands off to the next Congress and administration the endemic structural problems of our economy, our stock-market system and, last but not least, our political gridlock. Bush has now found a way to bail out on all the problems his reign created. Two wars, economic chaos, terrorism increasing around the globe, the US reputation in the world in the tank, and America in decline.

Thanks, Bush. Thanks, Congress. Fuck you all.

A tipping point?

According to this moment's numbers (because they change each moment) at RealClearPolitics.com, Obama's lead in the national polls is more than five points on average, his electoral college lead is significant and, most tellingly, the betting odds on his winning the election are above 60-40. (Check the figures in the Intrade Market Odds box in the upper right-hand quadrant of the site.) With the upcoming Palin/Biden debate, the "crisis" in the markets, and other messes around the globe, the next few weeks until the election could become ugly for McCain. A debacle like 1964 (Goldwater/LBJ) perhaps? Let's hope so, so that the mean-spirited conservatives are, for at least two decades, once again driven to near-extinction.

A day in the life

of calm and quiet Baghdad.

Not with a bang but a whimper

This is how opposition to America's occupation of Iraq ends.

That bugle you hear...

is the US Army taking over America.

A day in the life

Read it and weep. For all of us.

When I move to the mountains

I'll have good company.

Meanwhile...

Look, I understand why all the news nowadays is about the economy, the "meltdown" and so on. I mean, we're talking pocketbooks here. But wouldn't it be nice if just a tiny slice of reporting was devoted to the ongoing violence in Iraq? If not out of interest, what about humanity?

Be afraid, be very afraid

The Pentagon has authored an agenda for future US military planning that includes persistent battles around the globe related to "resource wars"; fights against a "youth bulge" that is imminent in emerging nations, as those nations' populations demand a bigger share of natural resources; use of outer space for enhanced surveillance of Earth activities and features; increased, sophisticated use of robotic warfare; and the improved ability to conduct war among civilian populations.
A truly frightening document, describing a truly frightening future.

Sarah...

what about the road to nowhere?

Was the "surge" a success?

Or was the surge merely a purge?

I wish I'd written

This. To which I'd add the personal greed of Americans, who don't seem willing to save, but rather wish to borrow and borrow and buy and buy. A culture of consumerism that started--once again--with Ronald Reagan.

Leave it to a Brit

to explain why McCain/Palin are doing so well in the polls.

Duh

Gosh all-rooney. If left alone (that is, unregulated) money-driven folks in the money-driving industries will make money at the expense of ethics and laws. Gosh all-rooney, when their behavior results in inflated asset-valuation and greed-driven practices, marketplace realities will eventually cause a crash. And here's the latest revelation: people who invest in securities do so not because they weigh asset value against risk (which might require reading a 200-page prospectus), but because of a herd mentality based on hype generated by the folks described in the first sentence hereof. How do I know this? Because a scholarly study tells me so.

Gosh all-rooney.

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?