Gotta havit

What a hoot! A fake ad for a fake drug for a fake disease. Google it to see how it's catching on.

Power to the people

I attended the student "strike" and peace demonstration out at UCSB campus on Thursday afternoon. The group (there were about 500 kids at the height of the event, about 200 at the end) assembled for speeches and chants on campus, then marched in an energized throng out the main gate and down both the incoming and outgoing lanes of California highway 217, shutting down the principal entrance to the university for more than two hours. It was quite a rally--beautiful day, wonderful kids. Let's hope it ignites something, something missing so far on campuses: genuine loathing for our nation's foreign policies.

(Here's a photo, with my protest sign--illegible because of distance from the camera--located just to the left and down from the speed-limit sign. Here's a more detailed account of the event from the SB Independent.)

BTW--A letter I wrote to the Independent was published in its 2/15 issue, and if it appears online, remind me to post a link to it here.)

Keystone spies

A background Newsweek article on the "Qud force" that Bush is blaming for Iran's intrusion into Iraq points out two oddities about the ordnance that was displayed, allegedly implicating Iran as the source of its manufacture: (1) The identifying language on the projectiles was in English, not Farsi; and (2) the date of manufacture showed the month first, followed by day and year, as done in American military script.

Can't these idiots who plant false claims to justfiy US invasion get anything right?

The "surge" debate in the House

I watched an hour or so of the ongoing debate in the House about the Democrat-sponsored "non-binding" resolution to disapprove of Bush's escalation of the Iraq war/occupation. Two observations:
(1) My congressperson, Lois Capps, happened to be at the podium for her five minutes and, to me, gave a creditable--more than creditable in substance, a bit weak in delivery--speech about the state of affairs in Iraq, and in this nation. I felt proud that she was my voice in Congress, even though she's nowhere near as radical in her views as I. She's good people, Lois Capps is.
(2) The Republicans, alternating speeches with the Democrats, were absolutely nuts. Speaker after speaker kept invoking "the war on terr'r," widening the debate to one of a global nature, calling any hesitation to support Bush's escalation as a capitulation to "those who would kill us" and "the extremist radical forces of Islam."
My reaction to the latter: I thought they were joking, that they'd drunk Kool-Aid or toked something. Their speeches sounded like lunacy, truly drug-driven.
But later this evening, on the Internet, I found out I was wrong. No lunacy, no Kool-Aid was at work. They were just following orders.

Forty years too soon

Damn--I want to go back to Harvard now, now that it's found a soul.
(Within the cited article, also follow the link to this piece about its new president.)

The Second Coming

Check out this incisive essay about our pundits' repeated use of lines from Yeats' poem. It does indeed feel like it must have felt to Europeans in 1919, when devastation and turmoil were everywhere, when the world seemed to be going mad.

Ain't war grand?

This is the account of the attack that injured this baby. Speaking as a new grandfather, I gotta tell ya, it's enough to send me to the barricates.
"PHOTO: A seven-month-old baby girl lies wounded in a hospital, after a U.S. air
strike which targeted two suspected foreign fighter safe houses, in Falluja, 50
km (30 miles) west of Baghdad, February 8, 2007. U.S. forces said they killed 13
insurgents in the air strike on two suspected foreign fighter safe houses near
the town of Ameriya, near the western city of Falluja. Ahmed al-Ami, a doctor in
the Falluja hospital, said more than 30 bodies, including those of seven
children, were brought in. Picture taken February, 8, 2007."

You heard it here first

Anna Nicole Smith is still dead.

It was too good to be true

It looks like Libby's lawyers aren't going to call Cheney as a witness after all. Damn. I was sooo looking forward to his having to answer questions under oath and under cross-examination by Fitzgerald, who's known to be a no-nonsense bulldog who keeps to the point, keeps asking the same question until he gets an answer, a real answer. He could have helped us learn how Cheney got the authority of "declassify" (that is, leak) the Valerie Plame information (the answer, of course, is that he had to have spoken to Bush about it, and we would have heard the content of that discussion); to whom Cheney then turned to effect the leaks (there were others besides Libby who were apparently tasked with this); and finally--to me most importantly--we would have learned what Bush actually did to effectuate his own "investigation" of the leaks. Recall, Bush said he was going to track down the leaker and if he/she was found, fire him/her/them. In other words, we could have had a ball.

But my trial-lawyer/politico instincts told me all the while that the listing of Cheney as a witness was a feint, not a reality. Not only is Libby (and by extension his lawyers) too much of a loyal soldier to expose the Bush administration to such scrutiny, but--as the cited article says--Cheney's appearance and evidence would probably have hurt Libby's defense more than helped it.

A wise choice by Libby's defense team, but Damn, damn, damn.

A "ragtagonist" responds

In last Thursday’s SB Independent, an essay appeared by a local psychologist who had witnessed our weekly peace march while having coffee at a cafe on State Street. I wrote the following letter in response.

To the editor:

I’m one of the “small ragtag band of war protesters” on State Street that Dr. Seabaugh wrote about in the February 1, 2007, Independent. (“Long Time Passing,” p. 46) I’d like to respond—not, however, addressing—and thus dignifying—his critical commentary on our age, our appearance and attire.

Dr. Seabaugh notes the absence in the streets of war-protesting Boomers. He wonders, “Where is everybody?” He points out that both Boomers and their progeny, “Echo Boomers,” have become inordinately attached to acquiring goods, as opposed to aspiring toward the good, a fact that may be statistically accurate. No mystery there: If Boomer parents have become predominately materialistic, their kids will mirror that trait.

But his question, “What happened to us?” poses an interesting question, one he doesn’t answer. Instead he suggests that new life-lengthening drugs may someday drive older Americans to the streets because they may actually live so long that they’ll have to endure the consequences of today’s government-gone-mad. That prospect, however, misses the point. He asked about today: What has happened to "us" today, to make "us" so lethargic, so distracted, so cynical, as no longer to protest the ghastly course the Bush administration has set for our nation.

This question, to be answered honestly, depends on what a fair definition of "us" is. Some of “us” do indeed march on Saturday—and have done so for 200 consecutive Saturdays since before the invasion of Iraq; some of “us” spend Sundays displaying 3,000 crosses at Arlington West; some of “us” stand weekly in silent vigil at street corners in Carpinteria and Santa Barbara; some of “us” gather at periodic rallies—rain or shine—to rail against Bush administration policies. And many more of “us” write letters, make phonecalls, seek redress from our representatives.

And so the “us” Dr. Seabaugh must be referring to is the “us” who sit idly by and muse about the state of things, but do nothing about them. If that includes Dr. Seabaugh, only he can answer, and only for himself. As for many others of “us,” I quote John Lennon’s “Imagine,” a song we often sing as we march up and down State Street on Saturdays: “I hope someday you’ll join us.”

A possible cover for my novel, Gaviota

I'm fooling around with my digital camera, trying to create an image that captures "Gaviota," which is a fifty-mile stretch of coastline between Santa Barbara and Point Conception to the north. "Gaviota" is a Spanish word for seagull, and I managed to capture this image at sunrise a few days ago. What do you think?

One of my favorite scenes in moviedom

More hearts and minds

We're probably not going to win many with incidents like this:

"BAGHDAD - Police and Iraqiya state television said U.S. forces wounded
Suhad Shakir, an anchor working for Iraqiya, when they fired on her car near the
Foreign Ministry in central Baghdad. The U.S. military said it was checking the
report."

Crunching the numbers

It turns out the "surge" will be a "splurge." And this, BTW, doesn't count the extra billions that Bush intends to spend on cleanup and rebuilding of the areas of Baghdad that will be demolished by the forces he's unleashing.

When will the Congress stand up to its Constitutional responsibility to stop this madness?

Why don't you say what you really mean?

This essay, which succinctly captures the current straits our nation is in in the Middle East, minces no words. Gems like:

"The futility of the Iraq War also is contributing to professional cynicism. Some intelligence support personnel are volunteering for Iraq duty not because they think they can help win the war but because the hazard pay is high and life in the protected Green Zone is relatively safe and easy."

and

"Normally, winning the hearts and minds of a target population requires a commitment to move among the people and work on public action projects, from building roads to improving the judicial system. But all that requires some measure of political goodwill and personal trust.
Given the nearly four years of U.S. occupation and the devastation that Iraq has suffered, not even the most talented American counterinsurgency specialists can expect to overcome the hatred swelling among large segments of Iraqi society."

The writer concludes that, as he did with Iraq, "the decider" has already determined to attack Iran, likely in conjunction with an Israeli strike on its nuclear-development sites. He ticks off the "drumbeats" that sound ominously like those we heard before the Iraq invasion.

Could it be? I still can't bring myself to believe it. Can you?

Milton Friedman isn't an idiot, he's an evil force

This bigheaded jerkoff is credited, in a PBS special this evening, with everything from Chile's "economic recovery" to the "all-voluteer" army in the US. What bullshit. Less than two decades after his views became Reagan's mantra, we see ruination of watersheds and rain forests, exploitation of labor, violent reactions in third-world nations, growing disparity between rich and poor, war without end because of the lack (by the US populace) of any sense of involvement. And on and on. Friedman's ideas of "market forces" and "absence of governmental involvement in economics"--the University of Chicago school of capitalist exploitation--will be the ruin of our civilization, a fact--a fact, not a theory Mr. Freidman--that is playing out on our planet every day.

What surprises me, really, is how he's still revered now that we've seen what his "theories" have wrought. As just the easiest example, consider California's "energy crisis" of five years ago, brought on by deregulation of the electrical grid, exploited by Enron. "Market forces" unleashed--and ruinous.

Update: I'm not alone in thinking this. Check out this essay just published on CommonDreams.

"Peace Train"

Before we attack Iran, the American public may want to watch this video of photos from its capital, Tehran. It might stay our politicians' hands if they realize that we're aware that it's a real place, with beautiful vistas and real people.

Between the lines

In my soon-to-be published novel, my protagonist at one point voices his creator's (that's me) suspicion of--antipathy toward--executive power. He, like me, doesn't know where that sentiment comes from. An innate disdain for authority or something.

Well, when I read this NYT article about Bush's latest action, placing a political appointee within each executive agency to filter the agency's regulations through a process that can only be called pro-business, I had that immediate rush of distrust. And I think from the tenor of the article, my sense is correct. This is a direct slap in the face of Congress, which doesn't control executive agencies directly. It will make the agencies beholden to the executive's biases, without restraint.

Like my protagonist, I don't care if this new order benefits Bush or subsequent Democratic administrations. The accretion of governmental power in the executive branch--by whomever controlled--is dangerous.

Just you wait...

we're gonna start hearing "body counts" of insurgents and terrorists under Bush's surge. Oh, it will be disguised or guarded, but numbers of dead "enemies" in various encounters will start to enter the official and, accordingly, the MSM, reports.

Too late: Here's one.

The NYT's new game

tracking the words Bush has used in his SOTU speeches. Give it a try, it's fun. (Hint: search for "climate change".)