Saturday, March 10, 2007
Mayans Rule!
To be sure, a sensible religious rite. But it's an even better PR stunt. Why didn't we lefties think of it?
Saturday, March 03, 2007
Time out
I'm headed out of town for a few days and will probably not be posting to this blog for a while. But as a parting shot on the status of Iraq, I'll say this: What a mess.
Another reason not to watch network television
The tail is wagging the dog, or the lunatics are running the asylum, or something like that.
Friday, March 02, 2007
The Libby jury: Hung or hung up?
As the Libby jury deliberates for the umpteenth day (seems like it, anyway), I wonder if it's because they're hung--unable to reach a unanimous decision--or they're still in the process of evaluating the evidence and the law. After ten-plus days, one would think the former, because as complicated as the defense sought to make the trial, the issue of Libby's lying vel non about the source of his information about Valerie Plame seems clear-cut. Either he was deliberately deceiving the FBI and grand jury about when/how he learned about Plame, or he was simply "mis-remembering" his source. This is not a multi-person, multi-event crime, but just one man's actions, with a simple premise, both legal and factual.
It occurred to me this morning, as I was searching for news of the status of the jury's deliberations, that the reason it wasn't readily available in the headlines of the day is that the verdict isn't really very important as a legal matter. Everybody probably believes Scooter fibbed to cover up his boss's avid wish to tarnish Joe Wilson, so a jury's agreement isn't much news, nor would its inability to agree be newsworthy, really. The fact of Cheney's immersion in the leaking/smearing process is out--and everybody's yawning over it.
But there is another facet to the story. If Libby is convicted of several counts, he could face a long prison sentence. Not that he'd be sentenced to a long term, but he'd face it, no doubt. Given that prospect, he might be offered--by Fitzgerald or by the trial judge--a less harsh sentence if he'd recant on his fiction and tell the truth about Cheney's involvement, in detail, in not just the Plame matter, but in the fabrication of the Niger/Yellowcake evidence and the inclusion of famous 18-word reference to it in Bush's speech to Congress. Such revelations could very well trigger a Congressional inquiry (leading to impeachment, maybe). To me, that's what's interesting about the Libby trial's outcome: the prospect of creation of mini-John Dean, testifying truthfully about his boss's sustained, deliberate illegality. A great way for this administration to limp to conclusion, and a guarantee that the neocons are driven from power.
It occurred to me this morning, as I was searching for news of the status of the jury's deliberations, that the reason it wasn't readily available in the headlines of the day is that the verdict isn't really very important as a legal matter. Everybody probably believes Scooter fibbed to cover up his boss's avid wish to tarnish Joe Wilson, so a jury's agreement isn't much news, nor would its inability to agree be newsworthy, really. The fact of Cheney's immersion in the leaking/smearing process is out--and everybody's yawning over it.
But there is another facet to the story. If Libby is convicted of several counts, he could face a long prison sentence. Not that he'd be sentenced to a long term, but he'd face it, no doubt. Given that prospect, he might be offered--by Fitzgerald or by the trial judge--a less harsh sentence if he'd recant on his fiction and tell the truth about Cheney's involvement, in detail, in not just the Plame matter, but in the fabrication of the Niger/Yellowcake evidence and the inclusion of famous 18-word reference to it in Bush's speech to Congress. Such revelations could very well trigger a Congressional inquiry (leading to impeachment, maybe). To me, that's what's interesting about the Libby trial's outcome: the prospect of creation of mini-John Dean, testifying truthfully about his boss's sustained, deliberate illegality. A great way for this administration to limp to conclusion, and a guarantee that the neocons are driven from power.
The Ikea Idea--good, bad, or both.
When I was last in Tucson visiting my family, my daughter and granddaughter and I spent a day in an Ikea store. Not the entire day inside the store, but a good three hours. (The rest of the day was spent in the three-hour round trip to Chandler, AZ, where the store was located.) I'd heard of Ikea, of course, but there isn't one near my home in SB, and so this was my first Ikea experience.
We got out of the store relatively unscathed, monetarily, but I gotta tell ya, I now understand why the place is such a money pit: It's attractive in both wares and warehouse; the stylishness of everything is truly remarkable; and the prices in many cases are incredibly low. Literally, incredibly so. I found myself checking the pricetags often, unable to believe that a desk or chest of drawers--attractive in design and of apparent fine quality--could be under $150! And then there's that undeniable aura of energy and competence that is derived, I believe, from the Swedish-ish culture of the place.
I didn't blog about that day because I've been so immersed in Bush/Cheney crud these many months, but I'm trying to wrest myself from that constant source of negativity--and so, the Ikea Idea occurred to me, triggered, I might add, by this humorous take on the subject.
Enjoy.
We got out of the store relatively unscathed, monetarily, but I gotta tell ya, I now understand why the place is such a money pit: It's attractive in both wares and warehouse; the stylishness of everything is truly remarkable; and the prices in many cases are incredibly low. Literally, incredibly so. I found myself checking the pricetags often, unable to believe that a desk or chest of drawers--attractive in design and of apparent fine quality--could be under $150! And then there's that undeniable aura of energy and competence that is derived, I believe, from the Swedish-ish culture of the place.
I didn't blog about that day because I've been so immersed in Bush/Cheney crud these many months, but I'm trying to wrest myself from that constant source of negativity--and so, the Ikea Idea occurred to me, triggered, I might add, by this humorous take on the subject.
Enjoy.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Monday, February 26, 2007
Friday, February 23, 2007
Thursday, February 22, 2007
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Paradox
Because of the conflict many of my fellow peace-marchers and I have over the "all-volunteer" military that we've sent off to foreign lands, we've stopped chanting,"Support the troops, bring them home." I mean, as this article points out, when it comes to the nature of those who're fighting over there, this isn't VietNam and our troops aren't victims. Hard to say it, but true.
Outrage cubed
Okay, first they craft a financial system (tax policy, trade policy, monetary policy, anti-union efforts) that favors the rich and widens the gap between rich and poor. Next, the impact of this disparity is felt most acutely in small-town America, where financial prospects are bleakest for the young. Then they offer financial incentives to the kids from these towns, incentives too grand to resist, so that the Army ends up with an inordinate percentage of its soldiers from towns with fewer than five thousand souls. Then, having started a war and given the soldiers insufficient equipment to fight it, they don't deliver the remains of those killed in action to the hometown of the soldier because it doesn't have a major airport, so that the family must travel miles to pick up and transport the body to its final resting place. Ya know, at some point I'd get really pissed off if I was one of those families.
Unwitting supporters of Bush/Cheney
This article by George Monbiot in The Guardian says it so well, I'll add only this observation. Since I've become a somewhat recognizeable antiwar person locally (my ubiquitous sign gives me away), I've been accosted by these nutcases many times, most recently at an art gallery opening. The fellow sidled up to me and hissed into my left ear, "You know about the third tower, right?" When I said, "Uh?" he went on. And on and on, whispering "facts" (a typical one: "Jet fuel is basically kerosene, and can't possibly burn hot enough to melt steel girders") into my ear, moving to my left as I tried to turn toward him. I finally faced him and said, "Interesting."
Unlike Monbiot, I've learned not to engage these oddballs. I don't humor them, but I don't argue with them either. I say, simply, "Interesting," and move on. Maybe, I reason, they'll thereby lose interest and restrict their rants to each other.
I do have this query, however: How crazy do you have to be--how deeply paranoid about government, how downright delusional about the reality of events and human behavior--must one be to foster these conspiracy theories? I mean, I can understand beliefs in burning bushes (no pun intended), immaculate conception, even Roswell (although that's a stretch for me). These have some spiritual basis or factual possibility. But a mass murder and a mass coverup like 9/11? All I've got to say is, There are crazies on all sides of us--and each of them has one vote. So, guys and gals, vote early and often.
Unlike Monbiot, I've learned not to engage these oddballs. I don't humor them, but I don't argue with them either. I say, simply, "Interesting," and move on. Maybe, I reason, they'll thereby lose interest and restrict their rants to each other.
I do have this query, however: How crazy do you have to be--how deeply paranoid about government, how downright delusional about the reality of events and human behavior--must one be to foster these conspiracy theories? I mean, I can understand beliefs in burning bushes (no pun intended), immaculate conception, even Roswell (although that's a stretch for me). These have some spiritual basis or factual possibility. But a mass murder and a mass coverup like 9/11? All I've got to say is, There are crazies on all sides of us--and each of them has one vote. So, guys and gals, vote early and often.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Why I love the internet
Yesterday, as I was surfing the net among my usual sites--iCasualities.org, Buzzflash, you know the drill--I was eating an avocado. I've found the best avocados in the world (I have a fetish for the fruit, having lived here in avocadoland for ten years, and being a regular at the annual festival in Carpinteria). These "best" avocados are sold by a particular vendor at the SB farmers' market (he only attends two a week, the Saturday market on Cota Street and the Tuesday market on State). His avocados are of the Haas variety, but, says the Latino vendor, they come from a particular type of tree that has been transplanted from Mexico. The fruit is almost spherical, has a slightly wrinkly deep-black skin and is heavier than other avocados. (To my dismay, the vendor told me the season for this type was ending soon.)
So anyway--I was surfiing the net about Iraq when it occurred to me to wonder whether there was a significant caloric or nutritional difference among the varying types of avocados. I know, by experience, that some are watery, some have a stringy quality, and none are as rich and heavy and creamy as my favorites.
So--I clicked on Google, entered "avocado calories" and searched for about five minutes. Among the hundreds of available, relevant sites I learned that indeed there did seem to be a difference in calories as well as fat content among avocado types, and that it appeared that Haas was the highest in both calories and fat. I couldn't find the values for my particular vendor's version (his name's Manuel and he lives in Santa Paula), but oh well.
Love that internet, except of course as an inveterate calorie-counter this was not good news. I suppose, however, I should at least be grateful that it's the end of Manuel's trees' harvesting season.
So anyway--I was surfiing the net about Iraq when it occurred to me to wonder whether there was a significant caloric or nutritional difference among the varying types of avocados. I know, by experience, that some are watery, some have a stringy quality, and none are as rich and heavy and creamy as my favorites.
So--I clicked on Google, entered "avocado calories" and searched for about five minutes. Among the hundreds of available, relevant sites I learned that indeed there did seem to be a difference in calories as well as fat content among avocado types, and that it appeared that Haas was the highest in both calories and fat. I couldn't find the values for my particular vendor's version (his name's Manuel and he lives in Santa Paula), but oh well.
Love that internet, except of course as an inveterate calorie-counter this was not good news. I suppose, however, I should at least be grateful that it's the end of Manuel's trees' harvesting season.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
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.)
(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.)
Friday, February 16, 2007
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?
Can't these idiots who plant false claims to justfiy US invasion get anything right?
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
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.
(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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)