"I think we need a fresh start..."

There seems to be no end to the supply of retired military generals lining up for their turn at the microphone to lambaste Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's performance leading the Pentagon, and the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Just as the buzz on the airwaves and blogosphere was reaching a fevered pitch this afternoon over yesterday's Washington Post article quoting Maj. General John Batiste as saying (among other things) "I think we need a fresh start", CNN reports that Maj. General Charles Swannak has told them that "I really believe that we need a new secretary of defense because Secretary Rumsfeld carries too much baggage" in this interview today.

To my knowledge this is way beyond unprecedented. This makes 6 or 7 retired military commanders who have made highly critical public statements about how Rumsfeld has prosecuted this war, (and in some cases have questioned the war itself) and have called for the removal of him and those he surrounds himself with. And the fact that this man has claimed to have twice submitted his resignation to W, and was twice turned down, if true, implicates the president in this mismanagement as well.

Remarkably, of the three military leaders who have spoken out in Rumsfeld's defense over the last year or so, two still reported to him at the time they did so. And essentially all they say is that he works hard, is smart & efficient, and knows a lot of stuff. Sounds like the perfect sole qualifications for a guy leading a $500B+ (annual) military operation. They do not speak to the charges of poor judgement, not listening to the guys who know how this business works, and unhealthy cronyism.

I can't even in my wildest imagination think of how the wing nuts on the right are going to spin this.

UPDATES: New York Times weighs in, and, another day, another general

Planning Armageddon

Question: What's more dangerous than a deranged, deceitful leader that is up for re-election? Answer: A deranged, deceitful leader that isn't.

In a new story in the New Yorker, an investigative journalist with a near impeccable track record dealing in truth tells us that the smash & pillage crowd currently in the West Wing are seriously planning a military attack on Iran, allegedly to try and terminate their nuclear weapons program. The real kicker? According to Seymour Hersh (who brought us, among other things, the first news of the Abu Graib parties) part of the plan involves the use of tactical nuclear (or "nucular" as they'd say) weapons against Iran to accomplish this.

Unlike the invasion/occupation "freedom's on the march" style operation a la Iraq (how's that one going again?), this would involve clandestine special forces and airstrikes only. I realize this crowd acts solely on single-minded, blind ideology and does not learn anything beyond political lessons. But I hope and pray that there will be enough representatives in congress who recognize that this action will only make the US and the world a more dangerous, not a safer, place for us all and will muster the mettle to stop it.

Here's another view from the Washington Post.

Ding Dong, the Witch is Dead (or "Tommy, We Hardly Knew Ya!")

Or is he? Is he more dangerous (& wealthier!) in private life without those pesky ethical roadblocks and whatnot?
He obviously expects to be caught up in his little sleeze web eventually, what with the plea bargains and all. Amazing how quickly the regressives got snared in their absolute power corruption. And the "national security" lemmings would probably vote for them all over again.

Weighing General Opinion

In yet another sobering interview, former CentCom commander General Anthony Zinni offered his assessment of the Iraq invasion and occupation again, this time on yesterday's Meet the Press (click on page 5 and scroll down to get to the Zinni transcript, McCain the chameleon is first). It wasn't pretty. A sample:

MR. RUSSERT: I want to bring you back to a book you co-wrote with Tom Clancy called “Battle Ready." And you wrote this: “In the lead-up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw, at a minimum, true dereliction, negligence, and irresponsibility; at worst, lying, incompetence, and corruption.” That’s very serious.
GEN. ZINNI: Yes.

And:

"I saw the—what this town is known for: spin, cherry-picking facts, using metaphors to evoke certain emotional responses, or, or shading the, the context. We, we know the mushroom clouds and, and the other things that were all described that the media’s covered well. I saw on the ground, though, a sort of walking away from 10 years worth of planning."

I'm sure the rightie airwaves are buzzing today with talk from claims of "the liberal media", to allegations about Zinni preferring woman's underwear, to "al Qaeda must be smiling with this support". Discredit both messengers, but never, ever have an intelligent, civil discussion about the subject.

But I challenge any regressive (or anyone who "supports" the war) to consider the following: General Zinni is at least the 4th or 5th retired high-ranking American general to publicly criticize the Iraq war for either it's wisdom, execution, or both. These are the guys who understand fully both the political and practical aspects of war. I am unaware of any similar individual who has spoken out publicly in support of the invasion and its execution.

I would also challenge you to read the interview in it's entirety (and the 60 Minutes one cited below) with an open mind. At that point try to make a cogent argument about the flaws in these leaders' positions. And let's forget red herrings, like he's trying to sell a book, it's the liberal media, etc., etc. The only constructive, factual, areas we should concern ourselves with in refuting this piece are the following:

1. Has MSNBC somehow edited his comments so as to have presented them out of context or contrary to his intentions?
2. Is General Zinni qualified to make such assessments?
3. Are these just the personal opinions of 4 or 5 disgruntled former generals, and do not reflect the real situation?

Given the above (as well as this transcript from a 60 Minutes piece 2 years ago), if you can make a sound, rational, logical counterargument based upon provable fact, then I'm all ears.....

Note: One could plausibly argue that W was honestly misled by his advisors. I don't buy that, but think its a valid supposition. However, one can't argue that the war has been botched, and that the guy solely responsible for its success or failure, Donald Rumsfeld, still has his job. And that failure rests squarely on one man's shoulders.

WATCH IT HERE

I'm So Sorry!

I've been neglectful of late about my posts, many distractions. There's lots going on, and will post one or more of the ideas I've been developing tomorrow (let me know if you have one or two ideas). In the meantime, look at some of the crazy things going on. Or, the archives, plus my favorite past month of postings.

Thanks for your visit, and, as always, I am grateful to get your comments below.

Straight Talk from the RNC

I'm sure Democratic Senator Russ Feingold knew just what was coming down the tracks following his March 13th introduction on the senate floor of a resolution to censure George Bush for his illegal domestic spying program. Now I don't know what the senator's motivation was for this move, whether it's purely political, idealistic, practical, or some combination of those. But I'll take him at his word that he is doing the citizens' work; he seems to be a good guy. On the surface it seems like a sane though largely symbolic attempt at accountability.

And yes, the backlash was predictable: Frist feigning monstrous shock & surprise, (as though Feingold had suggested a firing squad), angry talking heads like the O'Reillys of the world painting the good senator as a gay/lesbian terrorist communist alien. Then the Prince of Darkness, Dick, mumbling something about al Qaeda being the enemy, not W.

The most amusing, however, is a radio ad released yesterday to stations in the senator's state of Wisconsin by the RNC. One thing this crowd does consistently: just when you think they can't demonstrate greater chutzpah and hauteur, they prove you wrong. The ad frames Senator Feingold as wanting to "publicly reprimand President Bush for pursuing suspected members of al Qaeda". The new euphemism for illegal wiretaps is the "Terrorist Surveillance Program". And it lists a hopelessly unverifiable number of thwarted terrorist plots as a result of Mr. Bush's programs. Of course, there's also no way to measure whether or not we could been just as effective without these programs. It admonishes the good senator for being "more interested in censuring the president than protecting our freedoms" (protecting real freedoms is exactly what he's trying to do!!!). One thought concludes "Is this how Democrats plan to win the War on Terror?". Well, no, they probably think getting bogged down in a country for 3+ years with no end in sight is the most effective way to go.

Its no wonder some Americans don't consider the real facts and reach reasonable conclusions prior to entering the ballot box with this misleading tripe suffocating them every day.

Who Cares?

It would be amusing if it were not so sad. I'm talking of course not about the ongoing Iraqi occupation, or the illegal domestic spying, or even Dick Cheney shooting friends in the face. I'm talking about the use of banned steroids in sports; not the seeming increase in their use (or their reporting), but rather the fact that we seem to care. We have serious talking head analysis about it, testimony under oath in congress, and serious water cooler banter about whether or not so and so deserves his record or to be inducted into this or that hall of fame.

I could not care less.

If they want to do the drugs, let them. Let them take as much as they want! These are games they are playing folks, games! They are not issues that seriously impact everyday people's lives (unless they're losing wagers on certain games!). How about congress and the talking heads focusing on things that can improve the lives of struggling workers, like maybe fixing health care? Let the games crowd worry about themselves.

Serious Brass

I swore I was going to leave the guy alone for awhile, what with his low poll numbers and having to take a few on the chin for the team in an election year and all (though I pessimistically suspect that if there was a presidential election today the same group of wackos and lemmings would sweep him back into the Oval Office). But W (or "Commander Cuckoo Bananas" as Homer Simpson referred to him) rose to yet another new height of chutzpah and hypocrisy today in a speech to the National Newspaper Association in DC. With a perfectly straight faced he expressed a profound concern about the message sent to the Arab Middle East by broad US opposition to the Dubai ports deal. This, from the guy more disliked globally than any president of the last 100 years. This, from the guy who presided over:

• The unprovoked invasion and occupation of a sovereign Arab nation, causing the deaths of over 100,000 innocent civilians
• The imprisonment of over 1,000 Arabs (and others) without due process, representation, or any glimmer of hope of justice (until the Supreme Court shot him down in 2004, at least for Gitmo)
• The systematic abuse and torture of hundreds of Arab prisoners, including sexual and religious humiliation and insults
• The rendition of at least dozens of Arabs to repressive regimes for "questioning"

Yeah, this guy's a freakin' hero in that part of the world, and the pile-on over the ports deal is going to jeopardize all his good work. Wonder how he'd feel about visiting Iraq protected by a security force owned and operated by the Dubai government.
WaPo

Pro Choice, Male Edition

OK, controversy time. Before I post a blog on this issue, please share comments (click on "comments" at end of post below) on how you feel about this story (please read it completely first). I'll give a few days lead. What's your opinion, and what is the real issue here? Male and female comments are equally welcome.

Oh. And please don't sugar coat it, tell me how you really feel......

End of the Internet (as we know it)

Sporting its newly acquired AT&T brand (AT&T as we knew it after the 1984 divestiture no longer exists), SBC on Monday announced its $67 billion takeover of BellSouth, uniting for the first time in 22 years four of the original seven "Baby Bells". The usual bravado hit the headlines, "317,000 employees", "71 million local landline customers", "54 million cell customers", "largest merger in telecom history" and so on. Then the familiar drivel about benefits to customers, efficiencies, synergies, more and better services, discounts for bundled services, etc. (Forgive my cynicism but I've lived it from the inside). Finally the outcry from consumers' groups about the lack of competition, higher prices and so forth.

Everyone missed the real story, at least everyone until the New York Times caught it today in an editorial. The biggest impact this merger is likely to have is to bring about is their ability to use a quasi-monopoly position to change internet usage as we know it.

The internet has evolved into a service that we use much as we use local phone service: unlimited use. This plus the proliferation of broadband connections has spawned an explosion of ways we use the service, from shopping, to music and video downloading, to podcasting, to blogging, to VOIP (internet phone service). There is no usage barrier as with long distance telephone or cell minutes, so we surf at will with no self-imposed usage restraints. Because of this eCompanies have thrived and spawned new industries and commerce, such as amazon.com, Vonage, eBay, and iTunes. And companies have the ability to compete with each other for our business on a level playing field.

But if a single telecom concern could control a significant part of the infrastructure (not the end user ISP part, but the highway "pipes" that are the backbone of the internet) they could dictate what businesses get the express lanes to their sites, and what ones get the stop and go lanes, depending on how well the business pays for the access, called "tiered" access. Plus, ISPs could be forced to regulate volume even within a controlled bandwidth, forcing users to regulate their "online" time (as many sites "refresh" on a regular basis, causing a potential usage meter to advance, both business and consumer broadband customers would log off between needed sessions). This would be like charging shoppers for every minute they spent in a shopping mall, regardless of purchase. Get 'em addicted to the free drug, then start charging.

This isn't necessarily an evil thing, but could dramatically alter the future of the internet, and its long term success.

Pure Inspiration

The cynic in me wants to caveat this piece with a reminder that not all in the news, especially from Hollywood, is as real as it seems. But out of immense respect I will take that chance, that leap of faith. I choose to believe in this woman who has recently left us.

Like many in the world I have felt a great deal of respect, sympathy and empathy for Christopher Reeve since his resulting paralysis from a horseback riding incident in 1995 through his death in 2004, with all the courage, effort, painful struggles and inspiring, tireless work in between.

But my heart and mind were also greatly moved by the remarkable example set by his wife of only 3 years at the time of the accident, the former Dana Morosini, now Dana Reeve. Here was a beautiful, intelligent, talented and successful actress of 34 who chose love, compassion but also the realities of life (and had the wisdom at that tender age to recognize it) over the tempting lure of an easier and more convenient, understandable lifestyle. She did this surrounded by a culture which not only would have forgiven her for her choice, but which would have encouraged her to do so. One has to wonder how this Sturm und Drang may have hastened her untimely succumbing to disease at the tender age of 44.

She may have learned the peace few of us ever may, and most of us may never. I shall mourn and respect her passing. She undoubtedly made the final 9 years of Christopher's life a little easier to bear, perhaps to the detriment of her own. And I sincerely hope I can someday find what Christopher and Dana managed to.

Magical Design

A fascinating story about possible devolution.

The photo has the BBC copyright, so I trust its authenticity.

School's In Session

It is said that when the student is ready, the teacher will appear. That is, it is only when we are truly mentally and spiritually ready to absorb and comprehend new information that we will recognize that information. Kind of an awakening. Or better, the removal of a block.

I don't think the Shrub Crowd is at that point yet with regard to their "liberation" of Iraq, but they have to be darned close. The latest developments there have to be turning the heads of all but the most goosestepping loyalists, making it very hard to blame the failures on a few "dead-end kids" (as the fearless hunter Cheney once did) and making it clear that the powers that be (for now) understood nothing about the culture and environmental complexities of the region. Pictures of purple fingers are not going to turn this around. W's dad, a man of world experience got it. W, a man of privileged playboy experience (with no life accomplishments), may be starting to.

Come on in W, school's in session!
WaPo's take
NYT's
SeaPI's cartoon

Bode

I saw him on 60 Minutes a month or so ago, and I could not figure the reason he was singled out for feature (although the show has definately lowered its standards after Don Hewitt retired). This seems to confirm my reaction.

AWOL

Or am I a deserter? Oh, where have I been???!
(Maybe here?)
What does my expat reader in Dakar, Singapore think?

Does Porter Goss Have a Clue??

Anyone who has ever held political office or served as a business executive knows that some of the most effective assistants or advisors you can have are qualified people with whom you have had a long, trusting personal relationship. The key is that they are not just someone with whom you have close ties, they must also have the knowledge, aptitude, and skills to excel in the position with which they are to be entrusted. Anything less is simple cronyism.

Among the many failures in leadership by the Bush administration is the rampant cronyism at all levels of appointed government positions, from Bremer and the whole Heritage Foundation greenhorn types he dragged over to the Green Zone with him to "heckuva job" Brownie, now singing his heart out before a Senate committee today.

One of the lastest examples emerging of someone who might not have the horsepower to do the job for which he was appointed is the CIA's new chief, Porter Goss. Among the signs are his asinine statement last week to the Senate Intelligence Committee that public disclosure of the illegal domestic wiretapping program has caused "severe damage to our capabilities to carry out our mission". I can't imagine in what way. I'm picturing two bad guys in a cave in Pakistan, rubbing their hands together in glee because they now know that the U.S. is eavesdropping on its own citizens without getting warrants. Should make their job much easier. Now in its NPR-like attempt to appear "less liberal" the New York Times today printed an editorial by Mr. Goss regarding the "leak epidemic" he sees. The article is one of the most poorly written I've ever seen, it sounds childish. I thought the editors gave those the once-over, but apparently that was not the case here. And his logic is so classic Bush its starting to sound tired: We have to keep everything secret to protect national security, even down to what we may or may not have in the lunchroom fridge. I hold out hope that my first instincts are wrong about him. In the meantime, he can start his cleanup work here.

RELATED

Herding Sheep

President Bush was apparently one of the many watching his Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, refuse to answer questions this week before the Senate Judiciary Committee, making the whole illegal domestic wiretapping issue look that much worse. Even some of the regressive legislators are jumping ship on this issue, in this mid-term election year.

So W has decided to go back to the tried and true rightie playbook which guides him in crisis, the one that has served him well over the years, as well as such public service icons as Dick Cheney and Tom DeLay.

That book only has three chapters which cover variations on three tactics: Blame the Clintons, destroy the messenger, or scare the hell out of the sheep in the country. This time he realized that the first two would not meet the test (though his man Gonzales reminded us in the Senate hearings that there is precedent in the country's history for this broad use of presidential authority, citing the electronic surveillance conducted by the George Washington and Abraham Lincoln administrations among others), and realizing that the 9/11 shroud was wearing thin, he trotted out a retread of last June's story about a now 4 year old alleged plot to strike the L.A. area, apparently to scare us yet once more into "trusting him". I sincerely hope that for the sheep, this will be one wolf cry too many.

RELATED STORY

Fiddling

If there is any humor or entertainment value in the tragedy that occurred in the city of New Orleans this fall hurricane season, it must surely be in the antics and shenanigans of Mayor Ray Nagin. Here is a man who would not warrant even regional attention normally, but through this catastrophic event has been granted a global stage, and he's playing it for all its worth. Just as he seems to wear out his headline welcome, he manages to pull another rabbit out of his hat. Cindy Sheehan could learn a thing or two from him. I don't know whether he's sincere or just an opportunist, but he's never dull.

The latest rabbit seems to be a promising attempt to shame D.C. into fulfilling pledges to assist with the rebuilding of the Big Easy. He's entertaining world leaders, trying to get them to purchase a bit of the Louisiana Purchase. To say the least, the results will be amusing.

But beneath the prank is a familiar theme: W is long on political show (such as his pricey Jackson Square performance), but short on performance (even as he plans to spend still more on "national defense"). Assistance is critical now, before the city loses its character forever, and its residents lose their home forever. NOLA burns, Nero continues to fiddle.

Fiscal Fake-Out

Much attention is focused (and rightfully so) on the human cost of the invasion & occupation of Iraq, at least on the U.S. side, but little analysis is done on the monetary cost, which for all practical purposes is borne solely by the U.S.

Among the myriad of lies, gross miscalculations and misrepresentations the Beltway crowd sold us this arbitrary, elective war was the pledge that Iraqi oil revenues would pick up the tab. Well like the big bad WMDs, that promise has vanished into thin air.

Now I know most of us yawn or blanch (maybe both!) at the thought of a little financial analysis (SVT excluded), but please bear with me while we look at a couple of numbers from a report discussed on a recent conference call conducted by the OMB:

• Since the invasion this has cost us an estimated $250B
• The military operation alone is costing about $144M per day!
• No large scale reconstruction costs are included in these estimates
• Iraqi oil revenues are able to fund only a fraction of the reconstruction costs
  
• This is over and above the projected annual Pentagon budget of nearly a half trillion dollars!
• Some perspective? The total estimated U.S. government expenditures in 2005 (excluding the wars) is $2.47T (on revenues of $2.12T, btw)

The most sobering part of this? No end in sight.....

More from WaPo

Happy 250th!

Happy 250th birthday to Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, one of the six Greats!

JOIN THE CELEBRATIONS

WHAT ELSE HAPPENED TODAY

Contradictions

Ya' know, I'm surprised conspiracy theorists haven't had a field day with this one! Consider for a moment that W is a foreign agent, planted by, say, the House of Saud to bring down the good 'ole US of A. Let's look at the evidence:

• Running the most rapidly progressing deficit in history, increasingly mortgaging our financial future to the Chinese
• If the warrantless spying thing ever sees the inside of a courtroom and is found to be illegal, many legitimate "tearist" convictions could be overturned due to tainted evidence
  
• Fueling the growth of Islamic extremism by invading an Islamic nation which did not pose a threat to the US
• Dismantling the social infrastructure at home
• Fracturing the post WWII alliance
  
• Last but not least, rendering our military ineffective in the event of a real threat
  

Think about it. If even 3 of these things come to pass, it could begin the passing of a great nation.

RESPONSE FROM THE UNCREDIBLE MAN

"Warriors and Wusses"

Touchy subject. Hate the war. Support the troops. No one dares handle that one. Kinda like the 800 lb. gorilla in the room that no one wants to acknowledge and discuss. Or the naked emperor with the lovely new "clothes".

Until now.

In a gutsy, albeit controversial column yesterday Joel Stein steps out of the chamber of hypocrisy and bares it all. And he says some things a lot of us have been thinking, but haven't had the cajones to say.

How can you possibly hate the war, but "support the troops"?

Mr. Stein tackles this one with a poignant and provocative column in yesterday's L.A. Times. Unlike its portrayal by the Regressives (and some Progressives) it is not an attack on "the troops", but rather on the phonies that stick the ribbon magnets on the back of their cars, never even having a clue about what war really is and what the troops endure there or after returning, and also the even more spineless who claim to be against the war but "support the troops" (whatever that means).

I don't agree with all his points, particularly those that deal with the realities of enlistment. I don't believe a 19 year old is going to spend a lot of time and thought on the morality of historical use of force. Additionally, in many cases he or she may be pursuing one of the few career options in the community. And once they are in, options for dissent are and should be nonexistent. And I think national service is an honorable and fruitful pursuit.

But he does lay bare the issue of taking a consistently firm stand (not just one of a tepid rejection of war) contrasted with a politically safe chest pounding patriotism. There's a contradiction here that doesn't pass the smell test.

Please read the column. Sure, there's a tone of unseemly bravado in it. Maybe even insensitivity. But it made me think. He's not anti-troops. He's anti-citizens who have reduced their understanding and involvement in war to a magnet on the back of their car, or a phony "our brave men and women" platitude. Whether they are for the invasion & occupation or not.

Thank you Joel. We know that no one wishes the troops ill will. but we also know that it is just as patriotic to speak out when there is a wrong to be exposed.

SOME FOLKS WEREN'T IMPRESSED

Hamas

It was a fascinating development in the Middle East yesterday, the stunning rise to elected power which Hamas achieved yesterday over Fatah thanks to Palestinian voters. There're a lot of juicy aspects to it; let's look at some of the obvious ones.

First and foremost, its got to be an absolute shocker to the U.S. and other countries who had labeled the radical militant organization as a terrorist group (which it is). And they were democratically elected. We'll see the usual spin in the next few days: it wasn't so much a vote for Hamas as much as it was a vote against Fatah and the PA, who are corrupt and have dramatically failed the Palestinian people for so many years, blah blah blah.

The second and third things that come to mind are kind of in-your-face issues for Hamas itself.

One is the fact that part of their charter from day one was the goal of wiping Israel off the face of the earth. As recently as a few days ago they were stickin' with that story. But the PA and the West Bank settlements are not exactly an autonomous, stand-alone nation. Their public infrastructure (public works, water, power) is provided mostly by, well, Israel. So the first couple of conversations with their new patron will be a bit uncomfortable. And because the PA is currently on the brink of bankruptcy other benefactors may have some tough questions before providing more aid. How's the rewrite of the charter coming boys? And that logo?

The other is the fact that transforming from a disruptive force to a governance & diplomatic entity is quite a journey. The IRA was very creative about the way they accomplished this (assuming you'd consider them successful). For sure, Hamas provides a lot of charitable aid to Muslims which most westerners are unaware of. But they are largely composed by the guns and bombs group as well (the "T" word). Its easy to start the fires, harder to manage them and put them out. It will be interesting to see if they can make the transition from a negative to a positive role. It certainly will take a lot of readjustment, and some big time patience on the part of some outsiders. Plus a change in leadership, as we have learned from the likes of Mr. Arafat.

One thing is certain at this point. If relations between Israel and the Palestinian people don't continue to improve, or if the peace process deteriorates, it can no longer be blamed solely on disingenuous leaders like Yasir Arafat or Israel. Partial blame can now be placed at the feet of the Palestinians themselves.

MORE OPINION

The Curious Case of Jill Carroll

Unfortunately the average American knows little (or nothing) about the people we are in armed conflict with in the middle east currently, particularly those in Iraq, the folks we have "liberated". There are many reasons for that, ranging from the spin doctors in D.C. (on both sides) feeding us distilled and hopelessly oversimplified explanations of the area to the dangerous conditions making it difficult for journalists to travel outside of the Green Zone for the real stories. We are told they are murderous "terrorists", hell-bent on destroying "our way of life". We are also told they are not ordinary Iraqis; those were going to greet us with rose petals, and dance on Saddam Hussein's grave.

The latest target of the "kill the messenger" squad of the RadCons, Rep. John Murtha, tells us differently. He reports that they are 93% Iraqi; our friends during the day, tossing bombs at night. And the citizens not only know who they are but also support them clandestinely. Would you support an occupying force in your neighborhood?

But these "tearists", or "insurgents" have a curious PR problem. And the case of Jill Carroll is the latest example of this. Here we have an American journalist, familiar with the language and the culture, having friends in the area and trying to report what the real facts are on the ground, so we might understand the nuances of the war. So they (I realize there are many conflicting factions, have seen Monty Python's Life of Brian at least 30 times) abduct this woman, threatening to kill her unless several demands are met by the Americans and their Iraqi government. It's a message kinda like "they tell you we're barbarians so now we'll prove it!". I would think these folks would be giving foreign journalists an armed escort around the country (except FOX "news") so the world can see for themselves the extent to which the average Iraqi is affected by the occupation and growing civil war.

The American invasion and occupation of Iraq was wrong. The abduction and threat against Jill Carroll is just as wrong, arguably more so.

Soooo Busted!

File this one under Pets NOT to Have if you are having an surreptitious tryst. Its kinda funny and sad at the same time. I think he should have kept Ziggy. And I wonder what Gary's up to now.

The True Patriot

Al Franken has a great way to simply characterize the difference between an extreme conservative's love of country and a progressive's. The conservative love is much the same as a 5 year old boy's love for his mommy: its simple, unconditional, and anyone who says mommy is less than perfect is gonna get a big punch in the nose! The progressive's love, in contrast, more closely resembles a mature adult romantic relationship: deep, complex, always open to ways it can become better; recognizing that there are flaws in all of us, but still loving, building, growing.

There has been a lot of good, constructive analysis from a lot of great minds in the U.S. detailing what is wrong with our foreign policy, and our military approach in Iraq. The 5 year old calls many of them traitors, cowards, soft on terrorism, Osama-lovers; well, you get the idea (funny how just 6 years ago criticizing the Commander-in-Chief was tres fashionable in their circles). We've also endured considerable criticism from around globe, much of it virulent, from friend and foe alike. However, now we have some comprehensive feedback from one of our oldest and closest friends and allies, the British. A high ranking officer in the British military has written a very constructive but painfully frank critique of U.S. performance in Iraq after spending a few years working alongside the Americans in Iraq. There is much praise, but also a heaping helping of some friendly advice. What is more remarkable and very encouraging is that the U.S. Army published in in their magazine, Military Review (kudos to Colonel William Darley, editor; it's a great first step). No "peacenik", the man who wrote it.

While the British understandably are distancing themselves from the article by saying it does not reflect the view from 10 Downing, indications are that his are widely held opinions among high ranking officials, perhaps even in the mind of Mr. Blair himself. Of course, the rightie rule number one being to viciously attack the messenger, Brig Aylwin-Foster will be the target of long worn out negative cliches about the British over the coming months. Perhaps there will be a ban on fish-and-chips in the senate lunchroom. Maybe something less mature like giving up gin. Or, as we love to do to the French, we can declare "we pulled your fat out of the fire in WW II!" with all the righteous indignation we can muster.

Or we could listen to the sober words of a good friend.

No doubt there are some misconceptions in the article, but the overall tone supports many, many other assessments from other sources. We are morphing into a caricature of wild west movie gunslingers in our approach to the rest of the world, allowing our diplomatic skills to atrophy. No subtleties, no grays or nuance; Black or white, with us or again' us, good guys or bad guys. And what we don't like we blow up. Then we blow it up with a bigger bomb. Shock and awe. Civilian casualties? What civilians? They're all bad guys!

I know, I know. The world's an ugly place with some pretty ugly characters in it, who'd cut my throat without a second thought. True. And then we can trot out that Swiss army knife of excuses and justification, 9/11. And I take this life for granted in the comfort of my living room, never threatened by the hell that's out there. Again the all or nothing approach.

But the reality is that the world is evolving politically and diplomatically, especially the west, and we are becoming increasingly out of touch. We are losing our credibility in diplomatic circles as we continue arrogant unilateral actions, much as we are losing our moral authority through situations like Abu Graib, illegal detentions, black sites, illegal wiretapping, torture and rendition. Most progressives love this country, and are desperately trying to sound the wake-up call. This article is the latest wake-up call, let's hope its loud enough. We've stopped growing, folks (in some ways we're regressing).

Bill Clinton (among others, like W's dad) has said that we can never kill, capture or contain all those in the world who mean us harm. In fact trying to do so alienates those who would be our friend, and fuels those who won't. We can still set a major example for the world if we recognize this, and act accordingly. Mr. Clinton understands the world community we live in; he's a true patriot. Mr. G.W. Bush is an oligarch (or a plutocrat?).

Bremer

Hidden behind the current Alito coverage are other stories of the news cycle, particularly the attempt of L. Paul Bremer III to sell a book. Mr. Bremer, who prefers to go by the forename L and the surname III is attempting to be the latest public figure to secure his future by distancing himself from his past. Despite his rabid defense of the W approach to the invasion and occupation of Iraq when he was the man in charge, he now has considerable criticism, much of it quite valid, now that he has a career to cultivate and a book to sell. Mr. L. III does little, however, to take responsibility for his role in the Iraq mess, or his inability to correct it, much less extricate his reputation from it. Easy to call it on monday, Mr. III. Perhaps you can also blame Jacques Chirac and Jean Chretien? Enjoying that Medal of Freedom, are we?

Another Opinion

Now he wants to distance himself from his book!

Happy Anniversary to...... Us!!

It was one year ago this blog was started for a number of reasons, among them the need to vent over pent up frustrations, to celebrate the good stuff, and the desire to develop and improve a writing style (you might say it was a New Year's resolution). I was not sure how long it would endure, but here we are going strong a year later, and I feel like I'm just getting started! For those who have been repeat visitors, I thank you!

Here's the very first post from January 11, 2005.
SEE THE FIRST COMPLETE MONTH HERE

Dave Barry, 2005!

Dave Barry's annual year in review, a perennial favorite!

Complete Version

An Island Nation

60 Minutes did a piece last night on Bill Clinton and his work on assisting with the growing AIDS problem in China. About two thirds of the way into the story, the inevitable (and irritating) question was offered up by Dan Rather: Why can't you spend your energy helping those closer to home?

The question is well-meaning in a simplistic sort of way; When neighbors in the old west hit on hard times like a bad harvest or a devastating storm, the folk around them helped them weather the challenge (maybe this is just the movie impression, perhaps it never happened this way. At least now this phenomenon takes place occasionally at the neighborhood level).

But the hidden meaning screams out: American suffering is far worst than general world suffering (a bombing killing 10 lives in the US is perceived in the US as FAR worse than a bombing in, say, Africa which kills 1,000) and American life is far more valuable than general world lives.... at least once you get beyond English speaking countries, then the Western ones (except for the French and the Germans, who for some inexplicable reason have turned them from friends to targets). This is just plain wrong. We are all human.

Our country has turned into an island of sorts, oblivious and isolated from the world, impervious to its cultures, not unlike that of pre-WW II. Yet our government projects power and influence at an unprecedented level unbeknownst to 95% of the citizens, under Democratic and Republican leadership (actually the Reps today are more honest about their intentions). We can't even begin to comprehend the level of suffering in parts of the world (Katrina would be a relief to the black inhabitants of parts of the Sudan).

So one needs to ask, what is the "trade deficit" in terms of travel and cultural interaction between the US and the world?

To start, a little fact finding. First, the US is 4th in the world in terms of square kilometers of land mass. We just barely squeak past China, and are a stone's throw from Australia and Brazil. Second, we are the third largest country in terms of population behind China and India (unless you consider the EU as a country). Yet we represent only 6% of the world's total population.

So why the attitude?

Easy answer. Economic and military power, plus the fact that we yet again have become a cultural island. But the ugly truth is that we subconsciously discount the value of human life that is not American, and Caucasian. Consider the following:

• How many of you know (within 10,000) how many people died in last year's SE Asian Tsunami?
• Do you identify with the majority opinion that we'd "rather fight the 'terrorists' over there than here" (really meaning we'd rather have innocent Iraqi deaths than American deaths)?
• Lastly, how many of you consider 9/11 to be the worst human tragedy of the lat 10 years?
• How many of you have been to a non-North American country?
  

The point is this: We as Americans travel overseas far less than other civilized countries (depending upon source, 17% vs. 43%) and are far less likely to speak a language other than our own. We live in a cocoon, the dominating sleeper, unaware of our cultural surroundings. And because of that we're being fed erroneous information about other cultures, information we can't temper with experience. In short, we know nothing of the rest of the world.

To be fair, being the economic superpower we are as well as taking into account geographical considerations, this may be inevitable. Except for those of us fortunate enough to live on the only two borders we have (and I'd question that there is a huge cultural chasm between the U.S. and Canada besides the fact that Canada leans toward more progressive values), most folks don't ever meet "foreigners" face to face, always a guaranteed ice breaker. And its only natural to worry more about one's own friends and family more. But this fact behooves a nation which professes such strong "Christian" values to go the extra mile to walk in another's shoes (if I may mix metaphors!), especially when we are directly responsible for bringing on the much of the pain and suffering in the world.

Why should Bill Clinton worry about AIDS in China? Because we are all humans, equal in importance, equal in need. We are not American, Chinese, Bangladeshis; we are inhabitants of planet earth.

Long live Caesar......

Feliz Navidad

Feliz Navidad,
Feliz Navidad,
Feliz Navidad,
Prospero año y Felicidad

Poetic Justice, Nacchio Style

The perfect Christmas gift (am I still allowed to say that if I'm not a card carrying rightie?) would be an indictment of Mr. Rove, and serious impeachment proceedings against King George II.

Absent that, I'll take the next best thing, the criminal indictments against Joseph Nacchio announced today. Mr. Nacchio represents the near-worst of the American chief executive, the evil incarnate.

I know, I worked with the guy while with his former employer. Not directly, but two degrees away (one vertical, one lateral). This is a guy who delighted in vanquishing foes, humiliating them, taking pleasure in their pain. Business can be a tough environment, but his was a world where the employee, customer and company needs were of no importance; only his glorification, victory, and personal success mattered. I stumbled into his sights a couple of times, only a chinese wall and my relative insignificance protected me.

It's a good year.......

Memories of a Barrow Winter

It was heartening to see this AP story on several news sites this morning, it brought back 15+ year old memories of my visits to Barrow, Alaska, in the summer and the winter. Those deep December days were especially memorable, when the sun never rose, and a heavy ice fog could keep airline service out for days. Nothing to do except keep active, keep warm, and eat at Fran's!
CNN Version

"Saving" St. Nick

A number of years ago, when proposed anti-flag burning legislation was grabbing the news cycle TV fictional POTUS Jeb Bartlett asked his staff this question: Is there a sudden epidemic of flag burning incidents that I'm not aware of (or something to that effect)? His point was that the public, through a mob mentality, was getting whipped up into an emotional lather over a non-issue, a non-existent threat, distracting the legislature from more relevant an meaningful work. The issues change, but the intent and effect are always the same: divide the people over emotional ideological issues. Get them so worked up, so polarized that constructive discourse can never take place on that issue, and turn attention away from the real issues we face so politicians are not forced to deal with them and are not held accountable. Ed Schultz's Guns, God and Gays theory.

The latest trigger to be pulled is this business about "saving Christmas" or defending against the "war on Christmas". The psychology is always the same: Identify a clear enemy (more difficult in this case, we can't directly blame Osama or Saddam, so progressives as a group will have to do. We know they are all sodomizing atheists), clearly & simply identify how they are actively attacking you (anti-America, pro-Saddam, weak on national defense or crime, anti-religion), use incendiary language to describe it ("war on ___", "anti-war", "anti-family values"), and shout down any nuanced, balanced discussion on said topic. The battle lines have to be very clear; you are either 150% with us, or you are 150% against us. This cultural/sociological trend disturbs me on several levels.

First, I believe that the rightie talking heads who dominate cable TV opinion shows foment this anger and hate are intentionally trying to start this angry landslide, not to resolve any issue, educate, or cause constructive change. The Bill O'Reillys of the world don't believe half of what they espouse on the air, but (like Howard Stern knows the success of doing outrageous things) they know the more they can trigger anger and destructive emotion the better their ratings will get, the more money they're paid and the more books they'll sell. Of course the initial trigger is always some black and white code word or phrase, like "secular", "naysayers", "cowards", "weak-kneed", and the all purpose and popular "liberals".

Second, these folks make a few assumptions which they never bother to critically explore for validity. The first is that there really is a sinister and diabolical enemy out there actively working to erase Christmas from everyone's life. We love protagonists in fiction (Look at Scrooge and the Grinch) so we willingly believe they exist in every case in real life. The second is that anyone not actively bemoaning this war on Christmas is mortally offended by the words Merry Christmas. I don't know very many people who actually are offended. And this notion that this unseen demon is trying to take "Christ" out of "Christmas"? Ah, newsflash! This happened long ago. Christmas is THE single most commercialized holiday of the year. Even those who actively celebrate it as Christ's birthday do so only one or two days. The rest of the time its food, drink, parties, decorations, and of course shop, shop, shop. Don't like Target's "Happy Holidays" theme? Don't shop there. But don't turn their inclusiveness into exclusiveness or irresponsibly label it "Christmas Under Seige" for crying out loud.

Third, I'm unaware of any actual instance where an individual has been told they can't celebrate Christmas any way they want, put it in their cards, write it in letters 10 ft. tall across the front of their house, say it to everybody they pass on the street, celebrate it at the church of their choice. Like the gay marriage thing, this is about them wanting everyone else to think and act the way they do to validate their beliefs. Sure, there's the occasional story about a parent suing a school district over a nativity display. If its not your kid's school, why are you stressing over it? If it is, then let your voice be heard as well. But don't scream about a mountain where only a molehill exists. The term "Happy Holidays" has existed for at least the last 60 years, its nothing new. The season starts in November and ends January 2nd. Happy Holidays and Merry Christmas are not mutually exclusive, they can coexist, even within the same person! I have always taken either greeting as a friendly and well meaning gesture that made me feel good, I was not aware until this year that I need to be offended by one or the other.

Fourth, it is yet one more occasion where we should be coming together and celebrating our similarities, our differences, our strengths, and trying to help with our weaknesses. Instead we are now attempting to do with the holiday season what we let the Fox folks do with other occasions: turn it into an opportunity for destructive, divisive polarization, groundless paranoia and conspiracy theories, and bitter name calling.

And that is the true, tragic war on Christmas.

The Color Purple

Oh god, now we're going to see the purple finger pictures for the next 2 days, symbolizing yet another rhetorical "milestone" in Iraqi invasion success. And 30 days from now we'll be back to business as usual, daily bombings and death, waiting for the white house to tell us the next symbolic iconic event to anticipate.

W acknowledged today that "much of the intelligence" (read "all") leading to the invasion of Iraq was wrong, but he'd do it again given the same situation. He took "responsibility" (see previous post on this topic), meaning no accountability or redress.

God help the purple finger people.

Death of a Salesman

In about a month the name of Stanley "Tookie" Williams will not be recognized by the vast majority of Americans. Already, less than 24 hours after his murder, the news cycle has moved on to new tabloid headlines.

And the Jesse Jacksons and Sean Penns of the country have moved on to new spotlight opportunities, new Teri Schaivos and new New Orleans.

Governor Schwarzenegger has moved on from his denial of a clemency request by Mr. Williams to his own continuing headaches in his adopted state (as well as criticism of his suprise decision).

The Governor did absolutely the right thing.

(a well written opinion and decision -with the exception of the occasional silly footnote- though I doubt the governor wrote or understood most of it)

My reader knows I am vehemently opposed to state sponsored murder: the reasons are not important for this article.

As barbaric as capital punishment is, it is also the law of the land, as much as Roe v. Wade. We are the only modern western country that still embraces state-sponsored murder (ironically the countries we condemn as human rights violators and "axis of evil" club members are the biggest executors).

However, Mr. Williams was a cold blooded killer who exhausted the potential of the criminal justice systems appeals process as much or more than anyone before him (including before the "liberal" 9th Circuit), with no glimmer of luck. Just because he is a skilled leader and salesman who managed to champion a following among well meaning high profile people (and some opportunists like the Reverend Jackson) does not mean he should be given preferential treatment over others without those skills and resources. Capital punishment is supposedly the will of the people; it should be rejected in its entirety, not selectively sidestepped in boutique cases. Maybe Tookie should have taken a page from Gary Ridgeway's book, practical leverage rather than idealism.

The ultimate irony is that the last chance of clemency for Mr. Williams was squarely in the hands of a man whose only previously claim to fame was making tens of millions by entertaining audiences with glorified mass murder and gratuitous violence.

"Pro-Life" Lost

One of the main arguments against the death penalty in the U.S. has been the fact that there is a sizable potential for error: more than 120 prisoners on death row have since been exonerated since the Supremes effectively cleared the way for states to resume the killing in 1972; some by days, a few by hours befor the scheduled execution (1,000 have been killed since the landmark ruling allowing the states to decide). Most of these corrections have been possible through the technological breakthrough of DNA comparative testing, a crime tool not even envisioned in the early 20th century, though others have been through other means. This is precisely the kind of mistake that led Republican Governor George Ryan of Illinois to place a moratorium on the death penalty in his state on January 31st, 2000.

The pro-death crowd (usually the pro-"life" crowd) cite these exonerations as evidence that the "system works", the executions were halted in time, and of course there is no evidence of anyone innocent ever having been put to death.

The problem with this argument is several fold. First, its not the "system" that has saved the condemned in most cases, its been law student class projects and other bleeding heart legal vigilantes who have dedicated time to investigate and prove these cases, taking place entirely outside of the system of capital checks and balances. Second, as some of these exonerations have taken place within days or even hours of execution it is a flip attitude at best to conclude that the system had plenty of play in these cases to correct itself.

But finally the last house of cards defending this barbaric practice has at last sadly been breached.

The Houston Chronicle tells us that the first credible story of an innocent being put to death has finally been documented.

Ruben Cantu was put to death in Texas (duh!) in 1993 for a murder committed in 1984. Trouble is that there was only one eye witness who would implicate Ruben only after 3 police interrogations over a 5 month period. There was no physical evidence linking Ruben to the crime, no murder weapon found; The only thing that killed him was a possibly coerced witness, nothing else between execution, Texas style, and him. This witness has since recanted, leaving no evidence to support a conviction, much less execution. But it is too late. The strongest reaction of the DA? Bring perjury charges against the witness! Listen to more on NPR.

LISTEN ON NPR

Ego

Check out this signature of a well known L.A. lawyer who specializes in "suing for the stars" (in this case warning publications to keep "unauthorized" pics of Ms. Aniston's sunbathing breasts from their pages; for GQ eyes only!) It looks like Tinker Bell grabbed the pen mid-stroke and did her usual mischief! BTW, another "fascinating" paparazzo story and lawyerly threat; who the heck is paying for these photos and why? Its not like there's an Aniston boob drought out there right now....
MORE ON THAT...... (thanks thesmokinggun.com)

Lawn Darts

Now available on Ebay!
(click on picture for larger image)

SWAK

Looks like Joe's in payoff mode again, for whatever evidence W has agin' 'im. Some very shallow statements about the proliferation of satellite TV dishes and cell phones (What??! No Mickey D's or Starbucks yet??! You call that success??!) as well as a transparently misleading comment about 2/3 of the country being under control after a recent trip to Iraq. Says the pres should be getting these "good news" stories out there. Well, he's trying! There's only so much newspaper space available to buy for positive "investigative journalism"!

Skating to Freedom in Canada

If you were shocked last summer when a Canadian woman was released after serving only 12 years for assisting her husband with the rape and killing of 3 teenage girls (including her younger sister!) prepare for a new shocker. A Quebec Superior Justice thursday lifted what appears to be the Canadian version of probation conditions (I am not familiar with Canadian penal procedures, but it seems similar). Upper right is the couple in happier pre-rape/murder times. The husband is serving life without possibility; the wife got the spousal abuse equivalent of Stockholm Syndrome clemency (despite the tapes suggesting the contrary). Her lawsuits have already started, book tour to follow. I hope our neighbors to the north don't pick up too many more bad habits from us.