An observation about the Republican "opposition"

Only three out of more than 230 Republican legislators in the US Congress voted in favor of the "stimulus package." Their plain intent was to vote "no" so that should the economy continue its downward spiral they would be in a position to claim "I told you so." And, if it needs to be said, it is likely the downward spiral will continue, possibly to the bottom, because of self-reinforcing effects of the disastrous policies adopted by our lawmakers over the last several years.

Here's an example of such a spiral. We've long known that the production of beef as a foodstuff for humans in a monstrously wasteful use of the planet's resources because of the fuels and materials to feed the cattle, butcher them, transport and market the meat. Indeed, there is no facet of that industry that isn't bloated with excess input, compared to the caloric result in the form of human food. However, Americans' fixation on meat is almost hard-wired, a product of centuries of dominance of the agriculture and cattle industries in our nation.

At the same time, we've found that the worldwide demand for petroleum products to run our transport and industry has driven many to turn to "biofuels" as a source of energy, with, however, the consequence that the increased demand for corn and grain to make biofuels has driven up the price of the very products that for years have been used as fodder for both beef cattle and dairy herds. Indeed, of late, California dairy farmers have been killing their dairy cows because (1) the worldwide recession has driven down the price they get for milk, while (2) the cost to feed the dairy cows has increased beyond the price the milk demands on the open market. Result: Farmers are simply killing their cattle because they can't afford to keep feeding them for either milk production or beef. And of course with the diminished amounts of money in the hands of consumers due to the economic downturn, the prospect of an increased demand for such foodstuffs anytime soon is unlikely at best, so that the cattle-reduction, for both beef and milk, will likely continue for some time, possibly until that industry too becomes a recession liability.

Bottom line: The Republicans may have made the right political choice in opposing the stimulus. They've so wrecked the world economy--they've created so many ruinous loops like the cattle-debacle--that the smart money is indeed riding on failure of the stimulus, and they can regain credibility, if not governing status, by having opposed it.

Now wait a minute...

can this be true? KBR is still getting contracts in Iraq--and for electrical work? I thought Cheney was out of office.

Change we can believe in?

Well, so much for grassroots enthusiasm, if attendance at the recently-organized house parties is any indication.

The height of hypocrisy

Now that the turnover to Iraqi control of the thousands of detainees that the US has held for years in its prisons in Iraq is imminent, suddenly we're concerned that their government might not afford the detainees "due process of law." Right. Just like we did to them while we held them, and just like we've done to the detainees we held in our worldwide network of prisons, including Gitmo.

We've lost our moral standing on this issue, as on most issues, as a consequence of eight years of brutal, bullying Bushies, and it's going to take a long time to get back any credibility among the world's peoples, I believe. We've made a start with the election of Obama, but now we've got to act on it, decisively.

I'm no economist, but

this analysis, and the solutions posed therein, sound right to me.

From eight years ago, to the day...

An Onion article: Scary-prescient.

Ya gotta love the Irish

What are the odds?

The endless "war on terror."

Our children and grandchildren will still be fighting terrorists in the Middle East and elsewhere as long as our "ally" Israel continues to kill and maim in the region. It was the unconditional support our many administrations have given to Israel's occupation and domination in the area of Palestine that was one of bin Laden's chief reasons for attacking the "infidel." So now, after all the efforts to tamp down anti-American sentiment in the Middle East (as counterproductive as they have been), there is added this latest outrage in Gaza.

If we are to succeed in reducing hatred for America in the region and a reduction of violence against us from those who are suffering death and destruction there, we've got to rein in Israel.

Isn't this grand?

Animals are trying to adapt to the predatory ways of humans--fish becoming smaller to pass through our gill nets, elephants losing their tusks to avoid poachers--but they can't keep up. We're killing them off anyway.

WTF?

I thought, silly me, that by virtue of the Status of Forces Agreement that came into effect as of January 1, 2009, all "detainees" being held by US forces in Iraq were to be turned over to Iraqi authority and subjected to Iraqi sovereignty and Iraqi law, which specifically provided that such prisoners be either charged with a crime or, if not charged, released. Well, it turns out, not so fast. The US is still holding thousands of them and now wants to qualify the SOFA provisions to allow for continued detention without charge.

If I don't trust our government to abide by our agreements, why should foreigners?

"Fair and balanced"

The "democratic" government of Iraq has decreed that press credentials for covering its upcoming provincial elections will be issued only to members of the press who sign an oath to provide accurate accounts of the elections. I guess the democracy we installed there didn't read our first amendment.

More doggerel

Hue-ing the line

On TV, it's Oprah,
She's king of the hill.
In movies, it's Denzel,
Or maybe it's Will.

In tennis, a Williams,
Except when it's two.
In golf, there's no question.
You know, you know who.

In roundball, a toss-up,
'Tween Kobe, LeBron.
In football, McNabb--
On a day when he's on.

And now, not just Condi and Colin:
Barack.
All of which means, trust me,
Black's the new black.

Ennui

It's not that there's nothing going on. We've got a wrecked economy, bombing in Gaza, wars everywhere, political spats galore--on top of all the crap that predated these events. So why am I unenthused, unmotivated to blog about any of this? Could it be that, as Bill Murray chanted to the campers in the movie Meatballs, "It just doesn't matter"? That none of this matters, not even Obama's election, and certainly not Al Franken's? Could it be that our planet, with all of us aboard, is hurtling through space and we're simply clinging to it like ants on a boulder? Feels like it, doesn't it?

"Negotiating with Extreme Prejudice"

That's the title of this piece on Time magazine's blog. Its analysis concludes that Hamas will consider it a victory, a la Hizballah in Lebanon two years ago, if it can hold onto power even after Israel's invasion comes to an end. Kinda like Rocky becoming a hero by surviving his fight with Apollo Creed. The difference, of course, is that only Rocky got maimed in the movie.

Raul Castro speaks

and I, an expectant American liberal, am listening. I too hope that Obama's expressions aren't just that. Can America change, truly change, from a dominating empire to a peaceloving, decent, soft-spoken nation? We'll see.

"I was just following orders."

With shocking results.

Truth through risk

Because much of American media has determined that the occupation of Iraq doesn't offer sufficient bang for the buck and has therefore withdrawn its scrutiny and reporting of that ongoing misadventure, I'm regularly checking in with this site for information about the "boots on the ground" in that part of the American empire.

Off to school in Afghanistan (video)

Fourteen students were killed in the blast.

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?