Ya gotta love him

Venezuela's president, Hugo Chavez, wants his country's state-owned oil company, CITGO, which operates hundreds of gas stations in the US, to offer its gasoline at half price to the poor in America. No doubt it won't happen--too many logistical and financial obstacles--but he sure knows how to get under the skin of the conservatives, especially George Bush, and lately Pat Robertson, the assassin.

What is there about this name, Chavez? First Caesar, now Hugo. Troublemakers, both. Heroes too?

Strange bedfellows

While the Left chides Democrats (except for the few who consistently opposed the war in Iraq), the Right berates the NeoCons who plumped for this war. A few Democrats are coming around, now demanding an end to the war, and a few Republicans, too. Very few of each so far, but more today than yesterday, and more on the midterm election day in 2006 than today. Could it be that by then the Left and the Right can coalesce on this one issue: End the war and with it the reign of the madmen who brought it on?

It's the inequality, stupid!

This book, by an accomplished social researcher, documents and explains why those at the low end of the economic and social ladder suffer greatly, even if their standard of living exceeds, in material terms, that of their forebears. It's the standing in current society, in the economic and social hierarchy, that matters; which explains why nations such as the U.S., with great wealth, still lags in many health categories among the poorest classes. The relative standing of the poor causes the misery, and in the U.S., with the greatest gap between rich and poor, the poor suffer greatly.

A tremendous argument for socialism--especially potent to me, an inveterate socialist.

Fuzziness

There's been much Internet chatter about the squishy positions of "liberal" groups like MoveOn.org and others on the topic of withdrawal of US troops from Iraq; and even more hollering about the ridiculous positions of Biden and H. Clinton that troops levels should be increased. Well, as I hope readers of this blog know, the author has always demanded immediate withdrawal--from the day our troops entered Iraq to this moment. Just checking, just making sure you're sure. Out today, out yesterday, out in March, 2003, out forever.

As for what happens in Iraq if we withdraw immediately? Nobody knows. Just like nobody knows what will happen if we don't, except that the US will lose more troops, more money, and more standing in the world.

Hallelujah Halliburton

This post by Juan Cole is the first I've seen that raises the question of the impact of Islamic law in Iraq (now that the US has sanctioned it) on the myriad of corporate enterprises that were plundering that nation in the aftermath of our invasion. Wouldn't it be lovely if the mullahs decided to void all extant contracts as not in conformity with Islamic principles? Laugh, I thought I'd die!

The logic of withdrawal

The debate over withdrawal of our troops from Iraq has been cast by the Bushovics as "stay the course" versus "cut and run." Tragically, this has become the standard of discourse on the topic also, so that most Democratic politicians are buying into it, with H. Clinton and Joe Biden (two likely presidential candidates in 2006) calling for more troops in Iraq, not withdrawal. This thinking will also infect the upcoming midterm elections, probably, so that the American people will be left without a meaningful discourse on the possibility of immediate, or even early, withdrawal.

Such discourse is mandatory in a democracy, certainly over a war that has proven so disastrous and has been shown to have been the product of a fraudulent premise. And so it's heartening to find this essay, a sensible rationale for immediate withdrawal, stated in terms that demonstrate that it may be in America's interest to pull out now, as a strategic matter, not "just" as a moral one. Maybe, so clothed, the debate may find favor with politicians, who seem to prefer strategy to morality.

Baby on board?

No, I don't think so. Not if the baby's name is on the "no-fly" list.

Switzerland is so cool

They've frozen a deal to send some American-made armored personnel carriers to Iraq until they have assurances that they will be used only in noncombat situations. Neutrality rocks and democracy rules.

Intermittent outrage

It's true that lately my blogging has been sporadic. I took a long trip into the wilds of NW United States and Canada and blessedly left my 'puter in its bag; and on my return to SB was confronted with the need to find a new rental, which I've now accomplished and this post is authored from my new digs. So, while our soldiers don't have the luxury of being distracted by such silly excursions, I admit I have been.

However, I've still been doing my demonstrating, my tiny effort at informing those who pass by my streetside sign of the unending and lately mushrooming (to use Condi's word) US casualties in Iraq. And lately here's what I've experienced.

Last Saturday's march up and down State Street in SB was not only well received by the shoppers and tourists of this vacation town, but was positively uplifting. We got ceaseless honks and hoots and cordial expressions of gratitude--the strongest surge of support for our message, our chants and signs calling for an end to the Iraq war and the impeachment of Bush/Cheney that we've ever experienced in our two-plus years of weekly marching.

On the other hand, during my Sunday afternoon vigil, where I hold out my sign for an hour to the vehicular and foot traffic at the base of Stearns Wharf in SB, the reaction was muted, almost silent, as in embarrassed silence. Maybe it was Sunday, maybe it was because most folks were in a hurry to "do" their touristy stuff before they had to head back to LA...whatever. But silence, silence so constant it felt conspiratorial.

The United States has waged war, has invaded and is now occupying another foreign nation. Thousands of human beings were killed in the process, billions of dollars of destruction was wrought, millions of lives were eternally altered, all because of the faulty decision of a cadre of leaders "elected" by us to protect us from an enemy that is undaunted in its desire--and ability--to do us great harm.

I ask, and I'm not alone in asking, WHERE'S THE OUTRAGE? WHERE THE FUCK IS THE OUTRAGE?

King Solomon

And on the current state of cable TV "newscasting" check out this post.

Juan Cole speaks

One of the blogs I regularly visit is Juan Cole's. He's a college professer, shows up on liberal talks shows often. Here's a post that knowledgeably captures the current state of affairs in the oil game.

Beating a live horse

Okay, I've carped about this before, but on the sixtieth anniversary of the atom bombing of Hiroshima, it seems appropriate to reiterate a point about "terrorism."

The IRA, the German Baader Meinhof group, the Weather Underground, Osama bin Laden--these were hardly the first to use the death of civilians as a military/political tool. In just the last century -- not to mention the use of plague and disease as a weapon in previous times -- both the Allies and the Axis powers were "terrorists," as that term's being used now. The Nazis employed rockets, the V-1 and V-2, that were specifically designed to kill and frighten civilian Londoners to affect Britain's resolve to fight. We bombed Dresden, Tokyo and other cities that had no strategic value, precisely to break the will of our enemies to resist, and then, of course, there's Hiroshima and Nagasaki, cities without any military defense and no military value. We did so without warning, without at least trying to deploy the bomb on an unpopulated target to persuade the Japanese to cease fighting. We killed more civilians in our bombing of defenseless cities in 1944-45 than bin Laden can imagine.

Terrorism sucks, no doubt. But let's not forget its history.

Blood and guts

During the first three days of August, 27 US military service persons have been killed. This doesn't include Iraqi soldiers and police or civilians.

And yet, not a peep from any news source or Democrat (except those who opposed the war to begin with) that we should pull our troops out immediately.

Not even an explanation to the American public why these people are dying. The war has settled into a meat grinding operation, just like those who opposed it predicted, and Bush has the temerity to say that the recent deaths are a "grim reminder" that we're still at war. Reminder? Had he forgotten? Had the American people? Had the media?

I'm angry beyond words. So I'll stop typing.

Bean counting

For a detailed review of the recent casualty figures in Iraq and trends, check out this post. Not heartening, not at all. For an ongoing tabulation, this site's the best. The ghoul in me hits the latter every day, despising Bush/Cheney while I do so, because they've caused me to cheer our increasing death-toll.

Pat Buchanan, Republican whore

For years, Pat Buchanan, a Nixon/Reagan stalwart and conservative commentator on the AntiWar blog, has railed against the invasion and occupation of Iraq. I've linked to his writings often, including this post, well-written and incisive.

But he backed Bush/Cheney in both campaigns, notwithstanding that they brought us this awful, tragic war. Why? Because, he said, the alternative, Kerry/Edwards, offered him no choice on the conduct of the war and proposed a liberal domestic agenda, which he opposed.

Here's what I say to Buchanan. Shut up about the war, shut the fuck up! You gave your vote to Bush/Cheney, so shut the fuck up.

Your opinion, please

Okay, here's a report of a car bombing in Baghdad that apparently targeted Iraqi police (killing four of them) that also killed or injured several "innocent bystanders." Is this appropriately called an act of insurgency with "collateral damage," an act of "terrorism," "negligent homicide" or what? If the Soviet Union had occupied the U.S., and Americans were working as police to uphold that occupation, wouldn't an attack on those police by an outraged American be heroic, even though innocent Americans were killed in the process? I dunno, just asking.

The wheels are off

I'm not going to make the effort to provide links to all the stories that contain these facts (it takes too much patience), so you can either trust me or find them yourself through Google or various blogs. These are all current events, taken from today's news accounts.

We're running out of fish--the major fisheries in all oceans are startingly depleted. Our beaches are growing filthy. Global warming is here. Our Congress just passed an energy bill that omits requirements that our cars become more fuel efficient, and the House passed CAFTA, which guts the US job market and exploits foreign workers and the environment, for the benefit of multinational corporations.
The war in Iraq is growing bloodier, there are deep schisms in the positions of the various factions that are said to comprise its "freely elected" government, and women will lose significant freedoms under the eventual constitution. Terrorist attacks are now common in Europe, especially in nations that supported the US invasion of Iraq.
Middle class income in the US is down, credit-card and mortgage debt is skyrocketing, the disparity between rich and poor, nationally and internationally, is greater than during the "Gilded Age."
Corporations (banks, defense contractors and oil companies, mostly) are prospering, while the availability of health care to workers is spiraling downward, now become rare in some industries, particularly the service industry. America's deficits--both in international trade and in balancing its governmental fiscal policy--are higher than ever in history.

That's today's news, folks. And the good news? I'm in California, and the day on the east coast is almost over.

A fine kettle of fish

So--Turkey wants the U.S., occupiers of Iraq, to send troops up to the north part of Iraq to quell the Kurdish guerillas that are attacking into Turkey from there. We, of course, have stayed out of the north for our own reasons, and the Turks are getting tired of our one-sided treatment of terrorism, since they (and we) have labeled those Kurdish guerillas terrorists.

Oh, goody. Now we get to fight another country's war on foreign soil. We reap what we sow.

Blood in the water?

Thank goodness for WaPo's Walter Pincus. A true "liberal media" person. This story about Rovegate reveals that the prosecutor Fitzgerald has smelled blood, and has included in his inquiry the fascinating question of how the 18 words about "uranium from Africa" found their way into Bush's state of the union address, when the CIA had earlier stricken the reference from a previous speech by Bush. Recall how deliberate Bush's reference was: He attributed the information to British intelligence, an obvious way to avoid the dispute that was evident in US sources.

Could it be that there will be indictments? With the grand jury's term (and hence Fitzgerald's task) concluding in October, we don't have long to wait.

More mystifying

My reflections on the ambivalence of recent poll results, see my post, "Mystifying" below, are highlighted by this story, that cites a poll where a majority now believes Bush "deliberately misled" us about the existence of WMD in Iraq, that we're unlikely to "win" the war, but (what?!) that we were right to invade.

What does that say about our leadership, about our democracy, about pollsters, about the media, and--most fundamentally--about how Bush has Americans exactly where he wants them, dazed and confused.