The person who controls admission into Iraq's security forces

is a woman, and a hard-headed one at that. I particularly like the last quotation in the USA Today article.

Reason number ten thousand

to support Barack Obama: Michelle Obama. Princeton grad, Harvard Law, human being.

Look out below!

Here's a quote from the last line of a Forex (foreign exchange) report, which highlighted the first monthly loss of jobs in the US in years, the recent Fed reduction of the prime rate by 1/2 percent and the prospect of more interest-rate decreases to stem the US descent into recession.

"Also worth noting was an announcement from Qatar, which said it was mulling over its currency policy. Qatar’s peg to the dollar has resulted in heavy inflationary pressure given the greenback’s broadbased descent in recent years."

Qatar is our "ally," a major oil-exporting country in the Middle East. If it's thinking about switching from relying on the (petro)dollar as the currency for its oil, and perhaps switching to the euro for its favored indebtedness asset, can other nations be far behind?

Bush's Beach Boy song

You've of course heard John McCain's rendition of "Barbara Ann." Here's Bush's: "Bomb, bomb, bomb. Bomb, bomb, Iraq."

Obama, Oh Yeah!

Here's another reason to vote for Obama in the primaries, a reason that links my antipathy toward Billary with my fear of McCain. And here's another, one that echoes my yearning precisely.

Hey, Ralph Nader

About the Clintons: Why don't you say what you really mean?

A memorandum or a treaty?

This NPR report about Bush's latest tactic with Iraq is scary, and my reaction is, of course, No Fuckin' Way!

Ping pong

Okay, so the press is playing up the spats between Obama's camp and the Clintons' (note the plural). And it looks like Hillary is leaving the South Carolina primary to Obama and jumping ahead to the super Tuesday elections in the big states like California, New York, Florida.

Her idea, of course, is that once she loses South Carolina to Obama (apparently, Edwards is well behind), she can explain the loss as race-based, because of the many black Democratic voters. That, she figures, will scare white Democrats to think in racial terms about Obama--more than they have heretofore--and drive them into her camp.

How to counter this tactic, because we can count on the MSM to exploit it? I dunno, do you?

Just so you know

The billions of dollars spent on the "war on terr'r" are escalating wildly, and are ruining the US economy, just as bin Laden sought.

Meanwhile, in Afghanistan

the battle with the Taliban is "just beginning."

Readers of Nineteen Eighty-four will recognize the state of "perpetual war" that bound the citizens to the leader by fear and a seige mentality, just the way Cheney and the Neo-cons want it.

Obama, I hardly know thee...

These remarks about Reagan? WTF?

For those of you who are counting

Here's a list of "superdelegates" to the Democratic convention, both those who have already committed to a particular Democratic candidate for President and a link to those who've so far not committed. Why is this important? Because with all the hoopla about the Democratic caucuses and primaries (which so far have Clinton and Obama about tied for delegates, with Edwards behind), these "superdelegates" aren't the result of those processes. Instead, they're Democratic insiders: elected or formerly-serving Democrats, higher-ups in the Democratic Party, and the like. They make up almost 1/4 of the total delegate voting power at the convention, and when these are counted, Hillary Clinton leads Obama and Edwards by a huge margin. These "superdelegates" were the product of "reform" of the party in the 1970's, which allowed these leaders a lessened amount of votes in exchange for expanding the power of grass-roots caucuses and primaries.

Certainly, the reform was an improvement over the back-room deals the Democrats used before for choosing presidential candidates, but there's still a heavy loading of the voting in favor of traditional power--in this case, the Clinton dynasty.

All the news that's fit to print?

Here are two accounts of Bush's recent "important" speech during his trip to the Middle East. The first account (at the top of the report) is by McClatchy, and it places Bush's words in context, balancing what he says with the political and economic reality of the region; and the second (scroll down) is by the NYT, which merely parrots Bush's words. Recall it was Knight-Ridder (which since has been bought by McClatchy) that questioned the evidence about Iraq's WMD and its connection to al-Qaeda in the months before the March, 2003, invasion, while the NYT was rooting for war.

Just an observation, which, however, might lead my loyal readers to add McClatchy to their list of news sources.

Winning hearts and minds

by attacking Iraqi kindergartens?

The last dispatch

Here's an article in the Guardian, the final one from Iran by Robert Tait, whose application to remain in that country was recently denied. It's an insightful and sometimes sad and scary assessment of Iran's politics and culture by a man who lived there for three years, learned the language and married an Iranian woman. Must reading to get a handle on one of the members of the "axis of evil."

Here's where I stand (right now)

This essay says it better than I could, so I'll just add these thoughts: Imagine two little black kids running down the halls and playing on the lawn of the White House; imagine broadcasting to the rest of the world, including those "Islamofascists," that we've just elected a man whose middle name is Hussein (grandson of the prophet Muhammad); imagine what we would feel about America--its prospects at home and in the world, its promise to all peoples of the world. Just imagine. It's enough, isn't it, to make you want to race to the ramparts?

So, in a few days, maybe sooner, you'll see me astride them holding a sign that says,

Obama?

Oh, Yeah!

Well, duh...

Five years of invasion/occupation and it finally occurs to our leaders to offer the Iraqis jobs to clean up the damage we caused? Five years to figure this out? WTF?

The good hurt

Back in high school, the football coach told us when we were complaining that certain calisthentics were painful (I particularly despised the repeated running-in-place, then dropping to the ground, then up again), that we were feeling "the good hurt." Well, now, torn between voting for Obama and Edwards in the upcoming California primary, I'm experiencing the good hurt. They're both fine candidates and although my preference--based on positions alone--is for Kucinich, I realize he's not going to get the nomination, so I feel compelled to vote for someone who might.

Nader endorsed Edwards. Kucinich recently told those in Iowa who were caucusing for him in the first phase, that if he didn't get the required 15% of members, he'd want them to support Obama. This might be enough to give Obama enough votes to win in Iowa. However, I read today a piece by Michael Moore that mirrors my thoughts precisely, and it tends to favor Edwards for many of the same reasons I do.

Oh, the good hurt.

Iowa, where are ya?

Here's an important endorsement for Edwards, and a telling commentary on Hillary. I mean, with all his baggage, Nader is, to me, still the man!

Stories like this

make my blood boil--and, if you didn't deduce it from my name, I'm a whitey. If I were black or brown, I'd be heaving Molotov cocktails everywhere.