Sometimes it helps to have a Ph.D.

It allows you to research and write concise, accurate blog-postings like this one on the "Top Ten Myths about Iraq." Must reading, even for those of us who don't believe a word of the telecasters on the subject.

Take a guess

Which is it: The Iraqi parliament is going to grant amnesty (under certain very vague conditions) to all "innocent" resistance fighters that are held in Iraq and US prisons, as is reported by AFP; or does the amnesty apply only to those held in Iraqi prisons, as reported by AP.? Since the US holds 26,000 (probably more) prisoners, the question is more than technical. And since those held by the US no doubt feel no love lost for the occupiers, I wonder how the DOD is going to explain a mass release to the soldiers who gave their lives capturing them.

Your guess as to which report is correct?

Just the facts

Here's a good site, especially during political campaigns.

Latino revenge

It looks like Rodriguez ain't no Gonzales.

Democrat's rule?

This WaPo essay predicts a decade-long (and maybe longer) domination by Democrats in both local and national politics. While I don't argue with the numbers that it cites, I'm troubled by its failure to recognize unforeseen contingencies, including, most notably, another terrorist attack between now and the 2008 elections. We've learned already that we're a nation of sheep, and it certainly wouldn't take much to once again shepherd us by fear into another corral. (Excuse the ugly metaphor.)

Danger, real danger

The politicization of the Judge Advocate General's office, from top to bottom, is looming under the Bush administration. In the past, these military lawyers have stood as an independent impediment to the incumbent administration's effort to shape the legalities of war and warmaking. Keep an eye on this prospect, it's truly alarming.

Women in Basra

This report from The Guardian about the status of women in Basra (click on title, then run the video) saddens me deeply. The film of the Iraqi women, dressed in normal western garb, coming and going about their business in the 1960's, and now, out of fear, draped in those ugly coverings: How has this happened? Indeed, how have we Americans allowed our nation to revert to past injustices and constraints on freedom? Are these times a present-day version of the Dark Ages?

Startling numbers

Check out this essay revealing the astounding shift of American incomes in the last five years, with the top 5% of household incomes gaining income at unprecedented rates, while the bottom 95% has lost an average of $3,600 annually in the shift.

I'd like to see the Democratic-controlled Congress address this issue, for heaven's sake. So far, I don't think it's even on their radar.

It's as simple as ABC--Anybody but Clinton

I'm probably going to change my voter registration from Green to Democrat so I can vote in the upcoming California presidential primary. I'm now in the process of deciding which of the candidates I'll vote for. Over the next few weeks, I'll be sharing my thoughts with you on this blog, as much to focus on them myself as to edify you.

My first thought is, of course, that Hillary's not the one. Here's one reason: She's almost as bad as the Republican candidates when it comes to the war in Iraq.

Fasten your seat belts

And put your money in gold. It looks like we're in for a bumpy ride.

(I especially like the reaction of the financial executive to the enormous increase in the producers' price index: "Ugh!")

A word from the wise

Juan Cole on Nancy Pelosi.

I just don't get it

Look, I'm a political science major, and I've stayed abreast of politics since college. I know that in the US Senate (under its rules, not under the Constitution, mind you) it takes 60 votes to invoke closure and therefore to force a floor vote on proposed legislation. I know, therefore, that if a measure--like the energy bill yesterday--receives "only" 59 votes for passage, those 59 votes could not cut off debate if the opponents of the bill demanded to continue. In other words, if those opposing the bill chose to filibuster the bill, they could continue to do so for eternity and thereby tie up the Senate to avoid a floor vote on the bill, which, if allowed, would pass by a simple majority vote.

My question is this: Why don't the Democrats simply keep the bill on the floor and thereby require that the Republicans filibuster the bill? Make them spend Christmas on the Senate floor, make them keep the floor for weeks and months to avoid a closure vote? Particularly in this case, where the Republicans (and one Democrat, Breaux from Louisiana) are opposed to the energy bill as it's written because it increases some taxes on the massively-profiteering oil companies.

Am I crazy here, or are the Democrats simply cowards?

I'm going out on a limb here

because I know only what's in the papers, but this FBI investigation into various affairs of the federal entity that has been reporting massive defalcations and waste and fraud in the Bush administration's Iraq "reconstruction" activities feels and smells like retribution to me. Does it to you?

One tires of asking...

"Where's the outrage?" You'd think, wouldn't you, that somebody--an American leader of the feminine persuasion such as Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi or my Representative, Lois Capps--would cry out for her gender. But no. Let the Iraqi women suffer in silence.

A fundamental question

"Are Americans really 'better than that'?"

Another day in the life

of the "improving security situation" in Iraq: 72 Iraqi civilians killed, 177 wounded.

Further to the "Bush plan" to help subprime borrowers

I realize that Paul Krugman is a "liberal" economist/journalist, but in addition to the source I cited in my previous post ("Sweet Spot, 12/07) about the effect of Bush administration's "plan" to deal with the subprime loan debacle (namely, that it's a cruel hoax and a charade) check out Krugman's analysis in yesterday's NYT. His view: That it's an ineffective, industry-driven attempt to preempt a Congressional effort to deal meaningfully with the crisis. In other words, a cruel hoax and a charade.

Iraq according to the American Empire

So this is the Bush administration's version of "success" in Iraq: a series of segregated communities and regions, patrolled by police squads and separated by checkpoints and blast walls.

A perfectly fitting ending to a perfectly horrific war.

Sweet spot

The terms of "Bush's plan" to "bail out" borrowers whose subprime loans are in danger of foreclosure is both a cruel hoax and a charade. Here's a capsule of what it really means to both mortgagors and the lenders (and those who bought the loans), namely, nothing but a worthless news headline that does nothing but create the impression that Bush is helping borrowers, when in fact the administration's position is that it doesn't care at all about those who need help, but only those who read only headlines.

An illuminating lede

Here's the first sentence of an AP dispatch from Baghdad today:


"A car bomb exploded in a largely Shiite neighborhood of Baghdad on Wednesday and killed at least 14 people, police said, while Defense Secretary Robert Gates said during a visit to the capital that security and stability were within reach, although more work is needed."

(Actually, an update of the story says that 16 were killed in the bombing, and that nine more Iraqis were killed elsewhere in the country by other blasts.)

Any questions?