Diminishing refuge

I regularly check this site for data about the value of the dollar in foreign currencies. In the center of the home page are a series of flag emblems, labeled "charts," which if clicked will pop up with graphs of the various currencies' recent and past history against the dollar.

Of course all the charts show the precipitous decline of the dollar--most notoriously, lately, against the euro--but check out whazzup with the Canadian dollar. If ever I had in mind to split to Vancouver, no way Jose. Not with the Canadian dollar (until a few years ago worth about $.65 US) now worth a nickel than ours.

Heedless,mindless apathy

Here's a copy of a letter to the editor of the Santa Barbara News-Press that I sent today.

About seventy folks gathered at Vera Cruz Park on Saturday (10/27) to protest the ongoing nightmare that is the Iraq war and occupation. After songs and speeches, some of us spread out in small bunches along State Street to display antiwar signs, while a few others paraded along the sidewalk singing John Lennon’s “Imagine.” It was a finely planned—indeed, a refined—demonstration of opposition to the Bush administration’s actions in Iraq. It was met by smiles and thumbs-up from passersby, as well as supportive honks from the stream of cars that filled the boulevard.

The key words in the previous paragraph are “small bunches” and “a few.” This immoral war has been grinding on for almost five years, and despite widespread opposition to it by a majority of Americans—and despite the urgent efforts of the organizers of Saturday’s demonstration—we could muster only handfuls of protesters? Have we become so preoccupied with purchasing, so attached to routine, so conditioned by media and government that we don’t care anymore what is happening in our name around the world? Have we become “the good Germans” of the 1930’s who remained mute while their government took over first them, and then Europe?

The cartoon character Pogo once said, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.” His creator, Walt Kelly, meant it to apply to Americans’ silence in the face of McCarthyism in the 1950’s. I fear it applies to Americans now, with equal force and with even greater ignominy.

Update: The letter was published in the News-Press on 11/1/07.

I wonder why

the number of dead and injured American soldiers in Iraq is down lately, while the number of dead and injured innocent Iraqi civilians is up. Could this be why?

Update: Apparently so.

A picture is worth

more than a million words. It's priceless.

All my adult, conscious life

I've waited for this.

A video from the past

Wanna watch something really depresssing? Here's the culture I was raised in, filmed precisely when I was graduating high school.

The Battle in Seattle

Admit it: You weren't aware, as I wasn't, of what all those folks who were throwing rocks at the Seattle cops in 1999 were protesting. I mean, "globalization" and the International Monetary Fund and the WTO and such-like? What's the problem? In fact, even after I heard a Ralph Nader speech about the evils of these concepts (harm to American labor, harm to the world's environment, etc.) I was unmoved.

Well, now I'm fascinated, as much about how wrong I was to be ignorant then as about how prescient those protesters were. Fascinated enough to read with attention the entirety of this long piece about the longlasting detrimental impact of globalization upon the US working class and its contribution to the growing income disparity between workers and those who boss them. I'll save you the trouble of reading it. Bottom line: Globalization, for the American working class, means cheaper underwear and DVD-players, but no money to buy them.

Am I crazy or is Bush?

Here's a quote from a Bush news conference today:

"We've got a leader in Iran who has announced that he wants to destroy Israel," he [Bush] said. "So I've told people that, if you're interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from having the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon."


This madman in the White House is using language straight out of Dr. Stranglove, not in connection with an imminent attack on the US, not even an imminent attack on a treaty-bound ally, but to threaten world war based on a titular-president's rhetorical attack on foreign nation with which we have no reciprocal-defense treaty obligations. Furthermore, Bush's threat is made solely on the prospect that Iran might obtain the "knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." My God--talk about moving the goalposts, now our nation is going to start a world war because another country has "knowledge"? Because another country's president has made some untoward remarks about another nation? What about our statements about Iraq/Iran/North Korea/Libya/many others? We've been much more threatening to them that Iran is to Israel (and certainly to the US) and our threats aren't mere rhetoric but are backed by demonstrated nuclear weaponry.

Look, I knew before we invaded Iraq that Bush was going to go forward regardless of the protests or that facts "on the ground." But I've so far pooh-poohed the prospect of his attacking Iran. Call me stupid or in denial or just plain Pollyanna-ish, but I've until lately believed that with respect to Iran, Bush was "all hat and no cattle." But I fear I've been wrong. Language like the above demonstrates to me that he's absofuckinglutely nuts, that he's decided already to take out Iran's nuclear reactors/facilities whatever the state of negotiations/evidence/diplomacy. There's no other explanation for such incendiary language by the commander-in-chief of a world power.

Folks, we've got Dr. Strangelove in the Oval Office. Worse, we've got General Jack D. Ripper.

A graphic

is worth a million words.

Letter to the LA Times

In the past, my letters to editors have been to the SB Independent and News-Press.
With the following letter, I've decided to go bigtime. If anyone should see it in print in the Times, please let me know, because I'm only an occasional reader of that fine paper.

Dear editor:

I am curious. I wonder if any of your readers could point to a single feature or measure of the Bush administration—just one, in any field (except corporate profits and rising stock prices)—that has proven successful. We know too well the mind-numbing string of failures. The faulty pursuit of Osama bin Laden; the illegal and inept invasion and occupation of Iraq—and (it lately appears) Afghanistan; the worsening Middle East mess; the declining dollar; the loss of decent American jobs and the gigantic gap between rich and poor; the health care debacle; the growing environmental crisis; the upward-spiraling price of oil; the humongous federal deficit and international trade imbalance; the alienation of our allies and the disdain in which the US is held around the globe; the violations of our civil liberties; the corruption and incompetence of government; the decline of our military readiness—to name a few. Even the rise in home ownership that President Bush once touted has proven to be a Potemkin village, as thousands of foreclosures of easy-credit mortgages have reversed the numbers, resulting in a net decline in ownership during Bush’s tenure.

Some will argue that the U.S. hasn’t been attacked again since 9/11, to which the easy answer is this: If the purpose of bin Laden was to wreck America and instill fear and uncertainty in its citizens, he has succeeded beyond his wildest dreams, aided and abetted by the abhorrent policies and ruinous actions of his effective accomplice, George W. Bush.

In a nutshell

here's the situation, the dire situation, in Iraq that explains both the Anbar Province "success" and the future Iraq disaster. Note the author's prediction that the disaster will obtain under candidate Clinton as well as under any Republican candidate.

Pray for us, for our kids, for our grandkids. Bush/Cheney have created an endless nightmare.

Another day in Iraq

Take a look at this list of killings in Baghdad today, Tuesday. (Scroll down to "security incidents.") The total dead from bombings and shootings is, by my count, 38, with 104 wounded. Another 47 dead in other parts of Iraq.

I'm going to keep beating this drum until somebody listens.

What's new?

Ya know, I'm getting sick and tired of reading stories--"news" accounts, they're called--of events that many sensible students of history and human behavior predicted would occur years earlier. The accounts adopt a breathless, urgent tone, as if the latest development materialized out of thin air, with no warning, no foreknowledge by anyone. The most obvious example is of course the debacle that has become Iraq--even Cheney knew that was going to happen, having warned against invading Iraq a decade earlier when he was SecDef to Bush I.

The Blackwater outrage. How could it not happen that that would finally blow up? A bunch of young, highly-paid former soldiers, armed to the teeth, immunized from legalisms such as the prohibition of murder, driving helter-skelter through the cities of Iraq with supposed urgent duties and God on their side? That they'd run amok? Whoodathunkit?

The collapse of the dollar? The subprime mortgage mess? The rising price of oil and of corn for ethanol? The loss of US manufacturing jobs and the growing income disparity? There are so many of such predictable--predicted--disastrous developments that I've tired of chronicling them, even of observing them. I've taken to reading headlines only, because the body of the stories don't say anything I don't already know, and have known for years.

Revisionism redux

This "stab-in-the-back" story, so common to justify a nation's military defeat, is already in progress with respect to the inevitable sad ending to America's Iraq adventure, as Eric Alterman points out. But I must add that Congressional Democrats have only themselves to blame for its viability. Had they acted promptly to de-fund the war nine months ago, in accord with the mandate they gained from the 2006 elections, Bush would not have been able to pawn the war off onto the next president, whichever Democrat it is, to damn him/her with its eventual horrific conclusion. As it now stands, the Iraq occupation will drag on for another several years, and when it ends the inevitable decline of Iraq into bloody bedlam will be laid at the feet of those then in power, leaving Bush/Cheney and their apologists able to escape blame for the consequences of their egregious misuse of America's military might.

Doubting Thomas

Here's an essay about Clarence Thomas, with a long string of comments pro and con, dealing with his just-released memoir and his Sunday interview on Sixty Minutes. I watched the latter (I'm not going to buy the book for obvious reasons), and my impression was clear, pure, direct: This man is a small-minded, foul-spirited person, as low a form of life as can be found on the planet--with apologies to bacteria. If/when the interview comes online, give it a look and tell me what you see.

A leader of the pack of rats jumps ship

Tom Friedman, an "economic essayist" for the NYT and a staunch supporter of the invasion and occupation of Itaq, finally realizes that the "war on terror" was a mistaken concept and that it's time has come to get out of Iraq and cut our losses. His reason: it's bad for business.

Compassionate conservatism?

I'm not on fire about user fees for our national parks and monuments. It does make some sense to me to charge a fee to the folks to visit them, as opposed to supporting them solely by taxation, even though they're our common, national property. I makes some sense, although of course I understand the contrary argument, and I even understand the vehemence with which opponents of user fees express themselves.

But here's a fee that's nothing but mean-spirited and unfair and outrageous. Charging a $25 fee to recipients of more than $500 a year in child support payments to fund the governmental effort to collect delinquent support payments from others. Part of the Republicans' Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. Now you tell me: Is that fair? Is that governance you recognize? Is that even sane?

Havasu? No, have a headache.

I've recently driven through the towns that have sprung up along the Colorado River: Havasu City, Parker, Bullhead City, Arizona, and Laughlin, Nevada. They are as foul, as purposely ugly and hot and crass as an American town can be. I vowed never to return, to avoid being exposed to such miserable conditions, such a wretched culture. And now, I have another reason to stay away.

Lost in translation

With all the press that Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is getting these days about his remarks at Columbia University and the UN, it would be wise, I think, to test the reportage of his statements in the MSM against the accuracy of the accounts of his now-infamous "Israel-should-be-wiped-off-the-map" speech a few years ago. As this detailed translation of his Farsi words demonstrates, he said no such thing. Given the tenor of the times, we'd better be darned sure what we're being told about his statements is accurate. I'd hate to start another war based on falsities, wouldn't you?

World War III

Is this what it would look like? If so, to what Pacific island would you relocate?