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.