I don't get it, just don't get it

The Iraq war was about oil. No, it was about "democratizing the Middle East." No, it was to "make America secure," or "to get even with Saddam Hussein's attempt on Papa Bush's life," or to "create a legacy for Shrub."

Well, what I don't get is this: Why is it so hard for pundits to realize that even the Bushies are capable of rational thoughts. And the rational thoughts that formed the bases for our invasion and occupation of Iraq are all of the above, plus another compelling one: The NeoCons' desire to make Israel secure from its neighbors' hostile intent.

How hard is it to imagine a bunch of folks--Rummie, Wolfie, Condi, Cheney, Bush, Libby, Addington, and three or four more--seated comfortably in the Oval Office tossing about justifications for the Iraq invasion? Some of them--Wolfie, certainly, and Libby--may have harbored the NeoCons' basic reason most dearly; others--Cheney, Condi--the oil rationale; others--Bush, for sure--the legacy and the get-even justification. And all of them would have wrapped their reasoning in the "democratization" rubric and the US-security b.s. as cover for their underlying wants.

I'm certain Alexander wanted both land and trade routes, the Brits both goods and spoils, the Spaniards both gold and territory. I mean, we humans are complex enough to think more than one thought at a time, right?

So, why did the Bush administration attack Iraq? For all of the above reasons, and perhaps for others that I'm not diabolical enough to imagine.

"It's quarter to three..."

One problem with battling a bit of a flu bug is that I find myself going to bed early (around eight pm), only to awaken about now--two-thirty am--and needing some distraction before I can return to sleep. On the first Friday of each month such a distraction is, of course, the release of the previous month's job-creation figures by the US Department of Labor, which is scheduled for 8:30 am, EDT, or about two hours from now.

As you doubtless know, Bush's "strong economy" has produced net job losses for the last several months, an economic factor which, along with many more, indicate that the US economy is in the ditch. Some of the other indicators: record prices for gasoline, crude oil and oil-based products--everything from plastics to perfumes; increasing food prices; loss of high-skilled jobs in manufacturing, aviation and the like, producing a declining wage base; tightening of credit due to loss of confidence (as well as cash) by lenders, complicated by the slumping housing market which has cost homeowners trillions of dollars of wealth and dried up their source of borrowing. And on and on.

And so, it is with some trepidation that I await (although I may not be able to stay awake until then) the upcoming release of US job-creation numbers. It's predicted that there will be a net job loss in the range of 50,000. If it's substantially more than that, it's time to learn Spanish, bigtime.

Update: 51,000 lost jobs. The seventh consecutive monthly loss. Unemployment rate jumps to 5.7%, which is going to frighten investors, I predict, when the market opens in an hour.

2.3 million American jobs lost to China 2001-2007

Heckuva job, Bushie.

I've got a bad, bad cold, and so...

I'm abed and websurfing and have re-encountered this site, which is a gem. I recommend it for all curious folks, whether or not their noses are running constantly.

Obama at Chicago Law

This NYT piece about Barack Obama's law-teaching experience is quite interesting. I get the impression that the author was seeking "an answer" about Obama--his leanings, his legal sentiments--and was frustrated by not being able to pin down a precise definition. Recall, the University of Chicago--one of the fine law schools in the nation--has historically been known as a "conservative" institution, unlike Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Georgetown and most others in the top tier; and so I don't doubt that Obama's fellow professors and his students might not be able, or willing, to stake out a defined position about the man's teachings.

Indeed, because I was so immersed in my own law-school experience, as a student and editor, a graduate student, then later as a teacher of legal writing, I found this presentation of Obama's experience intriguing. I would love to have had him as a student, would love to have taken a course from him, would love to talk law with him, anytime, anywhere. In fact, if anything, this article makes me want Obama to lead our nation more than ever.

The future of Iraq

Here's an article about the US Air Force role in Iraq, a role that will evolve (increase) when the number of our combat troops is drawn down. (Don't think for a minute that whoever the President is, he will allow Iraq to fall into anti-American chaos.)

And if it struck you (as it did me) that our Air Force's involvement was problematic, check out the last two paragraphs of the article, which demonstrate that we'll be occupying a "sovereign" Iraq forever, but largely, hereafter, from the sky.

That was then, this is now

What a great time to be a renter, when home prices--and hence values--are dropping at a record rate. I get a kick out of reflecting on Bush's constant speechifying a few years ago about how home ownership was increasing in America, a phenomenon, we now realize (and some of us did then) was the direct result of financing scams that have since collapsed.

And then there's this story. Says it all, doesn't it?

A daily read

I receive by early-morning email this daily newsletter. I find it's an effective filter of the leading news stories, each with a link to the original publication, and unlike other sources it's not overbearingly extensive.

Today's news is so bad, it's frightening. Increases in numbers of cars in India; China's new insistence on driving bigger autos ("size matters in China"); a pullback of exports of oil by Mexico to US refineries--all driving up the price of gasoline here to levels that won't recede substantially, ever again. A failure of our "anti-terror" efforts in Pakistan, the ongoing frauds committed by private contractors in Iraq, the absurd show trials in Guantanamo. And these stories, mind you, are all from mainstream media sources, and I haven't included a mass killing in the US and a bombing spree in India.

"I read the news today...Oh, boy."

Deckchair arrangement

Yup--Those ones on the Titanic. That's what was happening before John Conyers' House Judiciary Committee hearings today at which a few of the most vociferous Bush-impeachment oracles were allowed a momentary public (C-Span) forum. And then, of course, quick closure.

Okay, Bush will get away with it. But didn't Caligula, didn't King George III, didn't, in fact, Hitler? I mean, sure, he had to kill himself to avoid humiliation, but he was in a palsied state, hidden in a bunker. A quick bullet, a bit of gasoline with his mistress in a shallow grave, and outtahere!

No, except for Nixon--who faced a negative Congress in a negative time--our system doesn't work. Nor do most systems. And, after all these decades--centuries, really--of decadence, I'm not sure it's even the best system there is. America, my country, you suck.

Have I sold out, am I getting old, or am I finally getting it?

I agree with articles such as this one that complain that Obama's views on various matters--including, most troublingly, the "war on terror" concept--aren't "progressive," in the sense that they seem to be in the same mold as the views of those who got us here. I mean, the idea that we've got to "make war" on all sorts of things--some cadres of bad guys in the desert, in the hills of Columbia, at the borders of America; even on poverty and drugs--is a monstrous way to view the world and the human condition.

But that's whaddup these days. The media, the mainstream of American thought, the vast majority of politicians--everything--cast our difficulties in such terms. So--what's Obama to do: talk like seers such as Nader and Kucinich, from the fringe of politics, and forever remain there? Or must he--and we as Obama's supporters--talk the talk f0r now, in order to walk a different path in the future?

Blunder or lie?

Much has been made of McCain's erroreous attribution of the success of the Sunni "awakening" to the "surge" in US troops in Iraq. It is called a blunder, a mistaken timeline, in which he states that the Sunni's actions against al-Qaeda were made possible by the increase in US troops. Of course, this is false, since the surge didn't begin until the "awakening" was well underway.

Is this a miscue by McCain? Is it a mis-recollection? Or is McCain simply lying?

Another question: Why doesn't the corporate media ask that last question?

Amazing, absolutely amazing

Obama takes the world tour that McCain challenged him to do. Obama is well received at his various stops, creating news stories wherever he goes, generating favorable coverage here in the US and around the globe. And so--what becomes the storyline for all this? Of course, it's "Obama's coverage in the media is unfairly biased in his favor."

Karl Rove's maxim: Attack your opponent's strength (in 2000 it was that Gore's too intellectual and a wussie; in 2004 it was that Kerry's a fraudulent soldier), so that whenever his positive message is presented, it's colored negatively by the tag-along story. From now on in the 2008 campaign, not only will the media be mindful of, and resistant to, favorable coverage of Obama; the audience will too. The positive message will carry the negative message along with it.

And you don't think Rove's a genius?

Get out your statute books

It's time to learn California's voting laws--sufficient to establish residency in San Francisco in time for November's referendum on this vital question.

Frightening

I just read an observation (a comment on the BBC website) that chilled me to the bones: "Remember, the American voters were imbecilic enough to re-elect Bush in 2004 by a larger margin than they elected him four years earlier; and this after he'd displayed unsurpassed incompetence and arrogance for his entire first term. Don't be surprised, therefore, if they demonstrate that same idiocy in 2008 by electing McCain to continue Bush's presidency. Someone once said 'stupid is as stupid does.' I'm not certain what that means, but let's hope it doesn't mean McCain will likely win election."

Letter to the editor

To the editor:

Here's a letter I wrote yesterday to the SB News-Press. I'll let you know if it gets published.

Update: It was published in the News-Press on Saturday, 7/11/08.

Let's see... The majority of Iraqis want the US to end its occupation of their nation. The "sovereign" government of Iraq demands a timeline for our departure. The strong majority of Americans desire an orderly withdrawal of US troops, as does the presumptive Democratic nominee for President.

So, one is compelled to ask: Who is it that continues to insist that our troops remain in Iraq, with continuing exposure to violent death and injury due to hostile fire, and further alienating Iraqis and incurring the disdain of peoples around the world?

The answer is of course obvious. There are three powerful people--three men--whose continued militant defiance flaunts the urgent demands of billions of other citizens of the planet: Bush, Cheney and their desired
replacement--indeed, their surrogate--Senator John McCain.

A day in the life

of a student in Baghdad. What misery, with razor wire and concrete barriers, hour-long carpools to take an entrance exam, armed protection at the test site. This is Bush's legacy: a wrecked nation.

On the question of the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq

Another country heard from.

Movie plots

Something completely different. In this report of audience and critical reaction to a mid-movie plot twist in the recently-released "Hancock," the writer lists other movies with significant twists. Many are my favorites, like "The Usual Suspects," "Chinatown" and, of course, "Psycho."

Your favorites?

I have drunk the Kool-Aid

The media--leftist, rightist and corporate (the latter two being duplicative)--have struck a chorus recently criticizing Obama for "moving to the right" or "becoming nuanced" in his pronouncements about the Iraq occupation, the FISA amendments, gun control and so forth. Indeed, I've joined the chorus in my private discussions. But now, on reflection, I've decided: I'm supporting Obama, ardently, by activism as well as monetary contributions to his campaign. He may not be perfect in his positions, maybe not in his person, either. But he surely is the finest candidate for president that has come along in a long time, perhaps in my lifetime. I've decided I'll forgive him everything (well, almost everything) between now and November, and go to the barricades for his election. Why? Because I must.

I'm in good company

I've always--that is, since I was socially aware--believed that socialism is the proper method by which to organize modern society. That is, I've never fully supported a rigorous communism, but I'm also skeptical of the benefits of unbridled capitalism. It's good to know I'm not alone in these beliefs, and that a man with a bright mind agrees with me, and for largely the same reasons.