A day in the life

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

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

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

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

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

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

So... Whaddaya think?

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

Do you want to lay odds?

Surprise, surprise

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

Worst empire ever?

The Archbishop of Canterbury ought to know.

A day in the life

of our new, dramatic democracy in the Middle East.

I ask again: Where are the bread riots?

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

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

Body count

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

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

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

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

Your thoughts?

I don't get it

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

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

Four dollar gasoline

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

Works for me.

Now, here's some great news

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

World War Five

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

The escape artist

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

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

Sometimes the Internet's not so cool

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

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

Talk about something I wish I hadn't learned.

Our allies in the "war on terr'r"

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

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

I wish I'd said that

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

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

Bottoming out

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

Ya gotta love it

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

Senator Feinstein ain't fine, no way!

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

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

http://www.democracyforamerica.com/

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

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

Can you believe it?

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

Sovereignty?