Re: You Can't 'Contain' Saddam 2/26/2003

Comment sent to WSJ
"not one person wants war"? That is utter nonsense. Certainly at least one person does, but that would be akin to an ad absurdum argument, s singularity. No, there are MANY people who want war, and the fact that this article disregards that reflects very very poorly on the thoughfullness of the author. Indeed, I would suggest it is natural to want war for people whose livlihoods depend on the manufacture and sale of munitions systems. It is a simple conflict of interest, nothing special at all. George Bush has stage a showdown at an unnecessay time and place for a dubious cause. Better a lesson to the conservative forces of theUnited States the and big corporations who operate as a quasi governement: you cannot act unilaterally, you will be shut down.

letter to the woodstock times, sent 2/26/2003
The argument may be wrong, but it is not stupid or without reason:

A reasoned reason for invasion:

It can be argued that Western democracy needs a forward positioned military base in the middle east. That forward position can be used to confront Pakistan, for instance, Korea for another. It can also untangle us from alliances with the Saudi�s, and better engage us with the Iranians, with whom we will NOT mess, indeed, we have no need to. It can also be argued that the UN does not have a strong executive branch, a mixed blessing, an is unable to act decisively.
But NO WAY that be stated that publicly. And yet all the nations know. All of them.
Nations are like the drunk looking for his keys where the lights are good. Much of the positions being taken are argued with language that is permitted, about issues that are permitted.... But the real issues are known and affect the battle profoundly. And note: disarming Iraq is NOT what is wanted. Only occupation serves the purpose. Bush might be stopped, but he cannot be deterred.

- we provide another convenient place to attack the United States... Iraq becomes the �low hanging fruit�, or like a cowboy raising his hat with a stick to see if the bad guys are still out there.

- the willingness to do that, to open the shell of a country and gobble up the insides is a wonderful and terrible warning: even the appearance of having malice with the threat of force toward this nation can get you invaded and killed.

- it might actually, indeed likely, benefit the Iraqi population: bad things happen to good people, but bad things can also do good, e.g., the civil war. Nobody saves people in nations that don't have "resources"...

Now this could probably have been done except for Bush the spoiled child and fool: his ultimatum form of negotiation and diplomacy by threat has screwed up the process. What may pass for manliness in Texas is just loutish behavior in the arena of world democracies. He could reasonably have mounted an aggressive human rights campaign, keeping the same objectives. Instead, he has squandered moneys and trust that was the right of this nation, our people, not his.
He will continue to do so, squandering things that are not his whether or not he is president.
I don�t think he has ever done anything differently.
The most significant choice this country will be faced with is the presidential election of 2004.

Gerald Berke
Woodstock
political_data.blogspot.com

In George Bush's world of ethics, if your mom and dad said they were taking everyone to Disney Land, they would be paying for it out of your clothes and food money.
George Bush is funding the United States aids program in African by shifting funds from the malaria program. see reference here

letter to WAMC
What is the role of the federal government?
You asked that on the Roundtable yesterday 2/25 : No small question.
But start from the implications of the grammatical form: the United States are? No, the United States IS.
The role of the federal government is
1. To secure the vitality of the constitution throughout the lands.
2. Provide for a nationwide uniformity of the basis services a citizen or visitor needs: Health, education, transportation, shelter.
3. To provide the appropriate uniformity to people choosing to become American: Health, education, transportation, shelter
4. To bring the resources of the nation to the aid, assistance and support of any region in the country.
The states are indeed free to embellish, to add to, but they cannot be given the right nor pressed to reduce the fundamental needs of the citizen of the country.
5. To directly own and provide access to lands in the nation open to the citizen of the nation.

We are residents of a state, we are citizens of the nation.
Would you be a citizen of Richmond where a proposed statue of Lincoln draws hate speech? I would suggest no. You may be a resident there, but you would remain a citizen of the United States, as defined by the functioning processes of the federal government, and that is absolutely essential: democracy is a process, and does not serve the citizen when it is only an ideal or a concept. In fact, a test for whether a thing is �right� in a democracy is whether it has been arrived at through a just and proper execution of democratic processes.
Gerald Berke
Woodstock
Political_data.blogspot.com

re: War for Peace? It worked in my country, by Jose Ramos-Horta
Op Ed NY Times, 2/25/2003
here
Too often, in pursuit of a just cause, we are willing to ride the tiger into battle. Let Mr. Romos-Horta's humanitarian intervention be carried into Iraq on the back of the United Nations, and not on the Bush Invasion.
If Mr. Ramos-Horta is calling for humanitarian intervention in Iraq, let him bring that issue to the floor of the United Nations. He may find the widespread support that the Bush Invasion has not.
sent to the NY Times 2/25/2003

The real Bush doctrine: if you oppose me, and you lose, you will be hurt.
krugman: threats, promises and lies
In reflecting, the proclamation "you are either with us, or against us" may be at the core of all that Bush does. Moreover, it does not appear to take much to qualify as "being against Bush": any failure to fall in line quickly and without resistance may do. Once a certain sluggishness to comply is detected, then Bush will first use charm and affection to win over the opposition, but have no doubt: once the opposition, always the opposition. Charm and affection, which is a close cousin of, if not the same thing, as "faking sincerity", can certainly be used because of the corollary to the doctrine: all is fair in love and war, and Bush is goes to war against the opposition, often undeclared.
Mr. Bush is setting his mark on the face of American discourse, but it is quintessentially un-American: a long memory and a promise of punishment to the opposition. Bush is creating a new legacy of hate to rival the antipathy between north and south, which itself seems to be gaining renewed life in this atmosphere.
The many allies and friends and we once had are on to him. Its being called unilateralism, but it will find its new name soon: a policy of revenge.

A LOZENGE FOR THE INSTAPUNDIT washington post 2/24/2003
suck on this
Behind the Backlash
Post correspondent Keith Richburg says overwhelming public opposition in Europe to the Bush administration's plans to attack Iraq isn't rooted in anti-Americanism. He says it's based on fear of American unilateralism.
audio link here

Citizens Ponder European Anti-americanism
Bush plans pilot programs gerald berke woodstock 2/24/2003
Americans claim they are unable to understand the wave of anti Americanism springing from the offensive policies from the Bush adminstration. To help Americans understand, the administration has unleashed another offensive, ill-timed and pointless to the point of arrogance for domestic consumption, directed at the families of the military so the message cannot be missed: federal monies to school districts for the children of American servicepersons will be cut.
"We think this we help", said a spokesman. "We'll reduce the funds for their children at the very same time they are separated from them and placed in harms way. They can't miss it." Another spokesperson said he thought the plan was "brilliant, and cost effective. "We are saving more that 1 percent of an airplane on this one!" she said.

Bush Faces Increasingly Poor Image Overseas
By Glenn Kessler and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
here Bush said Tuesday that he had no intention of recalibrating his approach based on last weekend's global protests. "Size of protest, it's like deciding, well, I'm going to decide policy based upon a focus group," Bush said. "The role of a leader is to decide policy based upon the security -- in this case, the security of the people.
Well, yes, that would be the role of leader. So is thoughtful, convincing and inclusive. No one around here filling that role. GMB
Bush has managed to piss off a lot of good people. (The same people whose tears mixed with our when the towers fell. The same people we have been friends and allies with for all of our lives)
One bad Bush?
The Frenchman found his wife in bed with another man, and it was not the first time.
He shot his wife.
"Better to shoot a bad woman once than a good man every week."
Note: this is NOT in any way shape or form a suggestion of violence against the president. That is illegal, and undemocratic. The joke is used only in looking at the millions and millions of people around the whole world that are being blamed for the serious mishandling by Bush, who does NOT do well at all in a democracy, it seems. Even has trouble getting elected without some power by fiat.

My Survival Kit
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Dowd had it simple and right: no one makes her feel more unsafe than Tom Ridge. And here comes Friedman, at long last, noting that the security measures are total bullshit. But he can't seem to get off his knees to his government news feeds, he approves of everything they are doing and maybe all this nervousness is our fault.
Hows that for spineless.

A Dream Denied Leads Woman to Center of Suit
Gratz's Rejection by U-Mich. Led Her to Fight Against Race-Conscious Admissions
here
"I'm exactly the opposite," she would later say. "I'm standing up and saying people should not be treated differently because of their skin color."
I wonder if Gratz has stood up for people whose skin color is not white. If she stands up only for white people, well, I'm underwhelmed. GMB

Inquiry on Wellstone Crash Finds Oddities About Pilot
By MATTHEW L. WALD
here
Steven Thornton, the F.A.A. employee with whom Mr. Conry had spoken about the cloud cover, told investigators that he had seemed adamant about not making the flight. After the crash, Mr. Thornton told the investigators, he became concerned that someone might have pressed Mr. Conry to go ahead.
this could be the start of something big. Mr. Conroy had a doctored log flight log book: he was subject to blackmail and where better to discover and apply that than at the airport. GMB

Fear on the Home Front
By BILL KELLER
here http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/22/opinion/22KELL.html
This is a most cogent and reasoned approach to invasion. It doesn't sweep the field, but it does have legitimacy, based on where we are now, regardless of how we got here.
Take note: Bush was stupid, and a person can get smarter, better in the White House. Clinton certainly did.

It's the oil, stupid!
In light of the clear statement of Bush's intentions, to occupy and establish a controlling government in Iraq, it is utterly clear the role oil has played in the process: Bush is an oil man.
His intimate connection to the men and machinery of the oil industry makes the handling of the windfall of Iraq oil trivial (as contrast to say, how Clinton might have had to deal with it. Clinton has no such intimacy with the oil business).
What Bush brings to the table is the ability to have people he and his dad know personally who can both serve and benefit personally from the opportunity.
Iraq will pay for the war, Iraq will repay us for our expenses and inconveniences and Iraq will pay the handpicked executives and their corporations that will do the work. All will be handsomely compensated.
We were looking the wrong way! The United States does NOT need the oil. But the oil industry does, and Bush and Big Oil are joined at the hip: same blood flows through both and the blood of oil flows unimpeded into the White House. The representatives of big oil are the ones who can extract this troubling substance, they are the industrial alchemists that change oil into money.
We were looking the wrong way. It is about oil, but not for the United States. Reagan used weapons, Bush will use oil.
It was never going to work out any other way. But its a GOOD solution, one that God would like, a triumph over evil, rewards for the good guys. Freedom doesn't give such predictable results. And Bush and God, they're pretty tight too. A lot of people are going to die. But look at the big picture.

"In our name, a half million human beings are being threatened with death in the next few weeks. Just like in the first Iraq war, and in the Afghanistan "War on Terror," we can expect never to be told the numbers of civilians killed."
by Peter Matthiessen
Are these numbers true anywhere near true?

Full U.S. Control Planned for Iraq
Bush: Iraq Can Be Lesson to U.S. Foes
Next comes Christianity, and why not?????

CNN and other networks say they are reluctant to air any advocacy ads, regardless of the issue.CNN and other networks say they are reluctant to air any advocacy ads, regardless of the issue.
Media concentration? The press is free only to publish what the government feeds it.

When you use celebrity in a perjorative sense, you mean Rush Limbaugh,
but Charlie Sheen is a thoughtful informed and reasoned man.
He gets his audience because his name is known. He keeps his audience because, and only so long as, he honestly informs from an informed point of view.

Generic brands of medicine with almost no markup at Costco.

The world protested American Policy
America can repudiate a misguided president and retain her moral authority. Continue to let Bush have his way, and she will forfeit it.

Another state of the union message with no bullshit. And here is a shorter version.
The language is a tad strident in places... don't let that throw you off: the basic message is right and the rhetoric needs to be turned down.

but not a penny for tribute!
Turkey needs 30 billion for use of bases to attack Iran.

Here are some disconnected thoughts on the subject and why I do NOT support the troops, now, or later and unless and until I am convinced that we must invade and kill.

Buffi Ste Marie: "Universal Soldier"
"he's the universal soldier and he really is to blame..."
"he's the one who gives his body as a weapon to the war, and without him all this killing can't go on"
"..brother, don't you see, this is not the way we put an end to war."

On the matter of war:
this is NOT a war. It is a slow and steady ammassing of troops. It is more like a gang rape. As Saddam has been dehumanized, surely rape is permitted?

On a military career:The military person joins an organization in which he absolutely must take and follow orders under penalty of prison or death: know that when you join.

Stephen Potter, Lifemanship:Committing the country to war is the ultimate oneupmanship: you can see that almost no one, no matter how they oppose the war, will oppose the troops. But I will and do.
If you get yourself in a career that commits you to kill from 30 thousand feet, from 100 miles away, and even with those odds you get yourself killed while you are doing the wrong thing, I am uninterested in your pain. You draw attention from the justly deserving.

On the responsibility of the citizen:Did the German citizens know? There were people marching for peace then. There are people marching for peace now. Does the American citizen not know? There are other ways.
Blind support of the soldier is cowardice.

On there being other ways:Others have taken from scripture and acted on it:
If your enemy is hungry, feed him.

On the administration:
why have we not been called on to reduce our energy needs by conserving, as a national contribution to peace?

sent to roundtable@wamc.org
Here are some disconnected thoughts on the subject and why I do NOT support the troops, now, or later and unless and until I am convinced that we must invade and kill.

Buffy Ste Marie: "Universal Soldier"
"he's the universal soldier and he really is to blame..."
"he's the one who gives his body as a weapon to the war, and without him all this killing can't go on"
"..brother, don't you see, this is not the way we put an end to war."

On the matter of war:
this is NOT a war. It is a slow and steady ammassing of troops. It is more like a gang rape. As Saddam has been dehumanized, surely rape is permitted?

On a military career:
The military person joins an organization in which he absolutely must take and follow orders under penalty of prison or death: know that when you join.

Stephen Potter, Lifemanship:
Committing the country to war is the ultimate oneupmanship: you can see that almost no one, no matter how they oppose the war, will oppose the troops. But I will and do.
If you get yourself in a career that commits you to kill from 30 thousand feet, from 100 miles away, and even with those odds you get yourself killed while you are doing the wrong thing, I am uninterested in your pain. You draw attention from the justly deserving.

On the responsibility of the citizen:
Did the German citizens know? There were people marching for peace then. There are people marching for peace now. Does the American citizen not know? There are other ways.
Blind support of the soldier is cowardice.

On there being other ways:
Others have taken from scripture and acted on it:
If your enemy is hungry, feed him.

On the administration:
why have we not been called on to reduce our energy needs by conserving, as a national contribution to peace?

Whither Estrada?
Wither, Estrada.
If the executive vets and selects but the candidate is silent before the Senate, then advise and consent is vacant.
Is the judicial branch to become an arm of the executive branch?

Like many other things this administration does, the answer is yes, and the reason is because we are good, we are good in the eyes of Lord and God Jesus.

President Bush plans at least two more weeks of diplomacy before deciding whether to attack Iraq and may support a deadline for Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to visibly destroy his chemical and biological weapons, administration officials said yesterday.
When Saddam has no fangs at all, Bush will invade with impunity. As it is, it looks like somebody might thing Saddam really has some bad shit and is ready to use it if invaded.

Alan Greenspan, the head of the Federal Reserve, testified
before Congress that the president's new tax-cut plan made
no economic sense and that the resulting large deficits
would degrade an already dire economic outlook; then, the
next day, after Republicans called for his removal,
Greenspan backtracked and said that the deficits weren't
really so bad.
from Harper's Magazine 2-18-2003

Commentary
The US has assembled an absolutely overwhelming force against Iraq: the forces deployed against Iraq exceed the Iraq forces by a factor of at least 100. This is therefore not a battle, not a war, but an invasion with great destructive intent.
Since the enemy has been vilified, there is therefore no notion of fairness, no reason to consider his loss, and no notice that half the population is composed of children no more that 15 years old.
It would be ethical to mount such a force were the intent to smother the enemy and thereby minimize all possible damage to the citizens. But this is not the intent: it is to avoid a single casualty among the US forces, making the life of a single American as to a god unto himself, and the life of an Iraqi of no worth at all.
Putin said of the Al Qaeda, "To them, we are dust." That is not our view of our enemy, but that is surely where we are headed and well on the way: viewing some human life as dust.

lSTANBUL, Feb. 17 � The Bush administration's plans for a northern front against Iraq reached a critical point today, as Turkish leaders ruled out a deal to allow American combat troops to use their country without agreement first on a multibillion dollar economic aid package.

This just seems unfair: US forces hide behind the skirts of Turkey.
The decision allows NATO to begin moving alliance AWACS radar surveillance planes, Patriot missiles, and chemical and biological defense units to Turkey, to be used if Turkey is attacked during a war with Iraq.
The United States is hoping to use bases in Turkey, the only NATO country bordering Iraq, to open a northern front in a military campaign to oust the Iraqi president, Saddam Hussein

In the race to and from war, everybody is mounted on the tiger of their choice.
The US has not invaded because it is not ready to invade. That's the underlying cause of delay. It is certain that all governments are aware of that and some will likely get out of the way when the US is totally prepared. But why not exercise options while it costs nothing but some harsh words.
Indeed, the UN inspectors are ratcheting up their pressure, such that they might be ready at the precise moment to move smoothely to concurring with invasion: watch Blix toughen the language.
On the other hand, a success by George Bush in Iraq will guarantee a re-election and they'll see 4 extra years of payback and back-of-the-hand diplomacy. Looks like everybody has a tiger to ride in this race.

Saddam is forced to disarm in the face of what is certainly going to be followed by an invasion: failing to disarm "satisfactorily" will provoke invasion. Totally disarming will invite it.

The US may be waging economic war against the EU: divide and conquer. Take France and/or Germany our of the loop and the EU becomes a satellite of the US. China is the east, the US is the west. One more move on the table? Or does the game end there? Well, very possible. 2 is a very stable number. Like 2 political parties. No third party to swing its weigh around and upset the balances.
The US has serious incentives to bash France. Likewise, France wants the US out of its playground. (thought triggered by a brief interview this morning on NPR as to why France opposes the US in Iraq and the not so veiled threat from Rumsfeld calling France and German "old Europe".)

One enemy Nuke could make useless this world greatest force.
That makes a nuke the poor man's army. And conventional forces look like bringing a knife to a gun fight. You can see why WMD upsets the applecart.

Measuring America by Andro Linklater. Jeffersonian nation building through a simple public policy: the measurement and thereby the transfer and ownership of land by anyone, a new notion in the world. With land comes power to people and from that a democracy.
Interesting: it probably works the other way, too: huge corporate farms, loss of individual land ownership and less democracy.

Richard Rodriguez, in "Brown" writes about the races, 5 categories: white, black, asian, hispanic, American Indian/eskimo and suggests they are too limiting, especially when the issue may be about class, about poverty, as opposed to culture: there is a culture of the poor. Interesting.
But the 5 catergories are NOT about you are, they are about how much you are going to suffer based on what you look like: its does NOT matter if you are "black" if you don't LOOK black. And it does not matter if you are white if you look Asian or Hispanic.
Which leads to some creative possibilities: perhaps we can choose to identify or be identified as any race we choose, much like we specify a religion. (We probably need a "no preference" category for "race" too). Perhaps many Americans might choose "no preference". Whoopi Goldberg introduced the notion that she is American. Period. No black this or that, just American. So, maybe that could be used in addition to or instead of "no preference" I'm thinking, I might like to be black, take a moral stand to identify with African Americans.
In any case, this completely handles the situation of children of asian-hispanic couples, for a most simple case. They can be anything they want, including asian and hispanic, and they can be "no preference" or they can just be American and suggest to all that they dare NOT be descriminated against.
American: that say a lot! America is, after all, NOT about race, it is about an idea, and it is a culture based on the idea of the inalienable rights of people. Our language and literature is a changing thing, absorbing the lives and words and experiences of the people who make up America, but central to being American is the idea of law, rights, and freedom.

The cheese stands alone

The cheese stands alone
George Bush has managed to create a world first: an underdog dictator, surrounded by a military field so large it could occupy Iraq in a literal sense. In sheer power it must rival if not exceed the D day assemblage of WW II. It is unseemly.
The field surrounding Iraq is astounding and without precedent : we are encamped in the sands , we cover the skies electronically and with every airplane imagineable, satellites peer down , a huge Naval fleet bobs in the waters as close to Iraq as possible. Every nation near Irag that will have us has us. Inside that circle is a small country where half the population is under 15 years old, as recorded in the congressional record. It is ruled by an evasive little dictator who, except for our attention, is way way down the list of the worlds worst.
Bush has also turned much of the country into a bunch of old maids, terrified, and checking under our beds for burglars. But he has also terrified us for our children, and that is unseemly and cowardly for a president. George Bush has become the big cheese and we all know the cheese stands alone. It is happening.

This Administration, now in power for a little over two years, must be judged on its record. I believe that that record is dismal.
Senator Byrd speaks.

The Bush Budget for Dummies

World on Fire
"So in countries with a market-dominant minority -- and Indonesia is just one of many examples -- markets and democracy benefit not just different people or different classes but actually different ethnic groups. Markets make the resented minority richer and richer, while democracy increases the political power of the poor, frustrated, indigenous majority. And the result is almost invariably tremendous instability and very often violence."

Jews? Certainly fits the profile. Not so chosen after all, just really good in commerce?

What is NOT asked or answered is the complicity of unregulated "free markets" in the formation of disparate distribution of the labors of citizens. As concentration of capital requires safeguards from outsideres, what better means than racial and cultural (ethnic) organizations? Mafia?

And as to there being no such ethnic group in the United States: ask a black man.
White? Christian? Bush?

Something has gone wrong"
In a word: Bush.

Bush:
He does the right things incredibly wrong, badly, ineptly.
Like helping a person across the street but forcing them to run and get hit by cars in the process, drop their wallet, purse, get tangled in the dog leash.
While he does the wrong things right with the great dexterity and confidence that comes from a complete and profound ignorance.
Like funnel huge amounts of money from the treasury to his friends and associates, pulling the rug out from citizens and positioning churches to save a few of them.
There is a bright spot: he is not being supported by the international community.

The confederate flag and the hateful people who flew it then and fly it now: to hell with them.
The flag belongs in a museum, and it should be labelled "STUPID".
The good old boys of Richmond don't want a statue of Lincoln in their town."
Amazing. Fucking amazing. These assholes hate Abe Lincoln.
150 years after they failed to kill the last best hope for mankind, they put Bush in the White House for a second bite at the apple.

The problem Saddam has is not so much that he HAS WMD's, its that he DOESN'T have the right one: nuclear. He can't do enough damage.
That's the lesson: if you want to be safe from invasion, get the bomb.
Do I think he's trying? You betcha.
As to the recent bullshit about linking Al Queda to Iraq! amazing. Its just a variation of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
As to Afghanistan: the US is NOT delivering anything near what was promissed. AND things are MUCH better off there anyway. The Taliban were viscious and crazy. And bin Laden hadn't pulled off 9/11 and if the Taliban had turned him over, they might very well still be there.
We could be scoring points on the future of Iraq post invasion.

Shock and Awe , a military strategy: the Powell doctrine on steroids. What it means, how it translates.
How destructive will it be? Can it be so fast that Iraq cannot destroy its oilfields, assuming it wants to? Can it be so fast that Saddam cannot launch missile and poison gas attacks?

Good news in Afghanistan?
Maybe. In fact, probably.
I can't find a thing on what's happening.
Things MUST be better for the people.
It's rather serious that we don't have an Afghanistan Watch that would objectively review what's happening... Which is likely good and might go a long way to assuage the fears of a post invasion Iraq.
I heard about problems in the cities, but they prerry much buried news that most of the relief had been directed to the country sides with very good effect.

Gerald Berke

Vivien Johnson on American Experience.
A black man, a hero of America.
In this country, in 1960, (we put a man on the moon 10 years later) we still held all black persons in contempt, this country, the United States of America, we practiced, embraced, and still enriched ourselves in the segration of the people of the Negro race.
Soon, in a matter of days, weeks, a white president will take this country to an invasion counselled against by people who were our friends but are no more, cast aside for that counsel. We, like all mankind, possess within us the nature to keep others as inferior, and hold them as worthless.

Observations:
There is a LOT of anger at any and all opposition to invading Iraq, as if THAT is the most important thing that needs to be done on the planet, that it has to be done first and to a fare-thee-well.
Whoever did the anthrax did it completely without detection. Its like the snipers didn't get caught, they just stopped.
Fairly amazing. That's what really bad leadership looks like.
***
Only the US and Russia have made powdered anthrax
***
You can't make powdered anthrax in secret!
***

Check out Idleworm for some entertaining animated illustrated political commentary. (Gulf War 2 and Ashcroft Online :-)

from thescotsman
The United States, infuriated by the German government�s latest efforts to stall any war, is talking privately of removing its bases from German soil to a more "friendly" country, such as Poland.
With over 100,000 men stationed at 95 sites, including the headquarters of the US military�s European forces, such a move would represent a staggering economic as well as diplomatic blow to Berlin.
another view of the global economy?

NY Times excerpt:
A bipartisan bill introduced last week in the Senate by Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, and Olympia Snowe, Republican of Maine, would reach much higher � a 33 percent increase for all light trucks to 27.5 miles per gallon by 2011. That would not only bring S.U.V.'s and minivans into line with the standard for ordinary cars but, when fully effective, would save this country a million barrels of oil a day � more than a third of what we now import from the Persian Gulf.
Also, catch this: in a side impact between two cars, the risk of death is shared: 1:1. Get hit by an SUV and the odds go to 29:1.

A Flat tax hits the rich HARD according to the article in Tom Paine's Common Sense. It says that the middle and poor pay 11% while the wealthy pay 5% (of income). It seems that some states are bad, some are worse, and none are good. Of course there's a question: is the data any good, really? Would Common Sense then find themselves in agreement with the flat taxers, at least at the state level? Or could a flat tax be "adjusted" to get the same results, ie, falling more heavily on the poor.
Finally, this is all average stuff. Is the data affected by some very very rich paying nothing at all? And would we expect that the very very rich (who are very very motivated) would let themselves be caught in a flat tax?

Powell vs Belafonte... are on different sides... but you know where Martin Luther King would be: he'd be with Harry. He'd be marching.

Another placekeeper (notes without links that might have links later if I find them again and feel like it)...
The blogs seem to have fun ridiculing the French, the Germans, treating the entire world like a humorous collection of vassal states that owe their existence to the brave Americans. How vainly ungenerous.
And if the US should suffer, well then those same people will take it farther and actually blame those for not supporting us, making our failure their fault.

Hum a few bars? "Just a Rappin' and a Chattin' with the Axis of Evil Blues"

Placekeepers
Ascroft's plan, Dismanteling Democracy or Patriot Act II as it is politely referred to is out. Ooops.
Ashcroft was appointed by this president. The tax cuts and the neglect of the economy and the people that depend on it: this president. This bungling of the war effort against Iraq: could he possibly invade despite signs that the country could just fall?
Then we get to DeIlulio, the interview in Esquire, the total lack of policy, Karl Rove, and then a recent broadcast on NPR: the tax plan is almost dead on arrival, but Bush does NOT care... he is CAMPAIGNING! All he has to do is show his position, make suggestions, NOT policy, and show he has TRIED...
Does he really care about Faith Based stuff? Its serves his purpose: getting elected. Right, wrong, and ever whether or not it even happens, doesn't matter.
There was a question: maybe all the political stuff was just until he got the GOP house... THEN he could get his plans through. But even the GOP house doesn't want his stuff. Its still totally off the wall.
The comment that Americans liked Bush, but almost none of the things he's actually doing was, it was suggested, more appropriate to the selecting of a talk show host than a president.

In a post today in the Washington Post, an American in one of the southern states and who flies the confederate flag as a symbol of what was and is good about the south, notes the crimes of the north against the south. Was the south not savaged by the north. Does not any country engaged in war impose upon itself and its own citizens terrible hardships and risks in persuit of that war? The south in fighting the north imposed great damage on its own citizens, forcing conscription, confiscating lands and goods, life and much much liberty.
Similarly, Germany, now seeking a changed role, now being placed as "old Europe" may be done with apologizing and seeing itself as the sine qua non of all war crimes asks, was the bombing of Dresden not a war crime.
War is to be avoided. The purpose of war, to paraphrase an honest American colonel, is to kill people and destroy property. How could there be a more fertile place from crime, both in its prosecution and in its defense.

from something at cardinal collective On the issue of WMD:

"If you have WMD you are home free"
Well, almost: there is some variation in number and type... And Saddam already has some, and its working. He hasn't got the bomb, but shit, could you IMAGINE! if he did! (The notion presented is that might it not be better to PREVENT Saddam Hussein from acquiring them than trying to get them away from North Korea? ) Yeah. I'd say it might. I'd say that is a very strong point.
But with suicide terrorists, there is a new scenario: any time, any place. And toxins and gasses have another aspect, like, who farted at the party?
Those who confronted anthrax might justly take offense at the "fart".

Cardinal collecive Has some comments on "diversity"... in the flavor of what's so special about race. Wel THIS is what's so special:
A black American is something you can see from a block away. I don't know of any other "diverse" characteristic that's like that.
It seems that most any other "diversity" can get right up close to you and actually right up next to you and you haven't a clue... you might not even wander into the notion that the person is a closet Nazi.
But a black man, he don't have to do a thing, say a word: he's black. And if you've got ANY plans, you have tons of time to get them up and ready.
You can see a black man in a car, a black man walking, sitting on his porch... he can't hide that.
His only chance is for YOU to be able to deal with it. And until you get around to fixing your problem its HIS problem and he NEEDS some law that directly deals with HIS unique situation.

Kathleen O'Connor, A Seattle health-care consultant is sponsoring a contest in hopes of sparking ideas and starting a public debate about health-care reform. There is a $10,000 prize for the winner. Not really a big amount, (that was like the amount of money Enron "lost" each nanosecond) but what IS news is that there IS a contest and there WILL be a public debate its going to be done with rules and in writing and anyone can play! You aren't going to get rich from the prize money but you ARE going to be HEARD!

In a recent interview on public radio (the health show), Ms O'Conner characterized the current health care system as a business to business enterprise with rules and procedures that have quite nothing to do with health care itself, ie, people. Boy, did THAT have a ring of simple truth! A business to business enterprise.
Anyway, read the write up in the Seattle Press , go to her web site where the contest is defined, read the Health Care Magna Carta.
If you want to actually submit a plan, there's an entry fee of $10, which is a bargain. Hell, I donated $10 just for the privilege and honor of even being ABLE to speak. Can you imagine! A contest open to ALL for a plan for health care.
Honestly, I think everyone should send in a few bucks. Great ideas ARE going to come from this. And a LOT of the people that are living off the fat of the current system are NOT going to be happy? Some bucks are going to be needed so that the information that comes out of the contest can be heard. Send in the bucks.

Not Everyone Weeps for Columbia writes Howard Kurtz in the Washington Post.
People die every day, lots of them and there is tragic loss. Yes, and..
These people died while "daring greatly". If that doesn't matter, if falling from the Matterhorn is much that same as slipping on your driveway removing a particularly troublesome piece of ice, well, I guess we won't be seeing you at the Matterhorn then?
But if you fall while pressing the advance of man, of the world, we will take note.

Notes from JPL, historian:
History teaches us once Saddam is out of the way Iraq we enter what I'm gonna call a "Collaboration phase".
I think you will find that US backed faction will take power while another group will head to the hills to begin a propaganda/low-grade guerrilla war.

The more the new regime conforms to US policy (or is perceived to) the more support the rebels will gain. They will bide their time and wait for the US presence to diminish before really putting on the pressure.

There have been statements already that the US will give no support to the Kurds so they will form yet another faction. A strongman will perhaps emerge from the rebel faction and civil war will begin. With a nation as diverse as Iraq some ethnic cleansing will be inevitable.

A modus operandi with Turkey by any faction could result in the destruction of the Kurds. Or conversely a deal with the Kurds might result in strong pressure on Turkey to intervene.

Modern technology and media could throw some interesting twists into the mix including perhaps Iranian involvement or a spreading of the conflict to Iran.

Look for bin Laden to attempt to get involved with one faction or another once things start cooking.
formatting and emphasis mine

Geocide getting into the news

Lots of it hitting the news all at once... something is happening
Four hits, four unique hits...

Samantha Powers (author of "A Problem from Hell") covered in the NY times by Celestine Bohlen, then a letter to the ed in the NY Times from Peter Galbraith,
same guy does a huge interview by Terry Gross on Fresh Air (Iraq gassing was long term and systematically directed against the Kurds...)
and the West Wing examines the Rwanda genocide...

I have been waiting for someone to notice that "never again" has been pretty hollow...

Only problem I have is that they point to the US to clean it up, as opposed to lead the UN to take action...

A few personal notes:
Iraq represents a degree of lawlessness under the laws of the UN (international quality-of-life, if you will)
Is is likely that Iraq possesses poisons, toxins. We know now, since 9/11, that they can be deployed and that there are people who will disperse them
On that basis, police action is appropriate. However, as it is likely that the poisons and toxins exist, it is likely that they will be used in combat. This is a dangerous police action.
On the other hand:
We are long exposed to deprecations of our government, of the leadiers and leading corporations and excutives of our country, and ALL of this has originated within our OWN country. So, if we have been instilled some doubts in the veracity of our government, remembering the attacks on the FBI, the justice department, the special council, and on the Clintons, which were simply excessive, we have to bear some of the responsibilty ourselves.
Finally, given the military power of the US and economic standing, it is probably not productive in examining the very very slight possibility that the US will NOT commence an overwhelmingly strong police action.

Ripe for unintended consequences due for man whose forward vision stops at the windschield, George Bush may be a UN supporter, per Robert Wright in the NY times today.
Both the United Nations' champions and its critics sometimes indulge a gauzy conception of its founding mission. The idea wasn't to bring world peace through love and understanding. The main idea was that powerful nations would spot troublemakers and pound them into submission (hence bringing "collective security," in polite language).
Has a nice ring to it, for the UN to pound them into submission.

A personal confession: I can see how it works.
Things are getting tight. Lots of concerns, war drums, threats, conflicted thoughts. Yeah, what the fuck: bomb them, kill them take their oil, whatever. If I don't know about it, if I don't have to actually see the people, have all that nasty suffering thrown in my face, shit, I can ignore it. Go to the movies, stop at the supermarket, pick up a steak, some red wine and the wine shop. Yep.
Not to mention all the exciting war coverage, all neat and clean. Don't ask, don't tell works fine here.
I know it shouldn't. But it does. It will.
How do you feel about it? You have any doubts?

The Bush hydrogen car proposal Why doesn't someone just say he's full of shit? This dork totally ignores current fossil fuel problems, and finds a god like solution 20 years in the future.
Very pious, very religious: don't worry about life on earth, look towards your rewards in heaven. Spoken like a true believer. Spoken like a guy who has enough money to buy all the air that HE is going to need.

Another place, where people are holding back the sea, trying to preserve some life, some wildess, Yaak, Montana

I spent a few months in California, 1970. Palo Alto, Marin County, San Francisco, Napa Valley. Spectacular.
I went back many times, and then one time, in the Napa Valley: nothing. It was quite gone. Traffic, roads, telephone and power poles, touristy stuff. But then, what surprised me at least as much: New York state had drawn even to California and pulled away.
Forests, watershed, streams, views, no traffic to speak of, not really. Stores and shops of craftspeople, and wild flowers of all seasons along the roads, punching through the tall grasses, in the median strips. (It really helped that IBM was gone. Almost like that line from the Tale of Two Cities: "Nothing so ennobled his life like the leaving of it" Well, close. Google says its from Macbeth. No matter, it fits.)
That's not going to be here forever, that wrapped up in the generous arms of nature thing, not even much longer: there's gambling coming to Sullivan County, Gitlin? Gitner? Whatever, coming to Ulster County and another gigantic community planned at the cliff face of Mohonk.
With that comes roads and traffic and shops, and destruction of the watershed, the forests that take NY though the droughts and into heavy rainy seasons and its like the state is dressed in one of those all purpose 16 way Columbia outdoor outfits, with a vest that zips out, and arms that zip on and off and a waterproof windbreaker and no matter the weather, NY state is out right in the middle of it, and looking good.
I'm thinking there needs to be sort of a Monroe Doctrine for communities: no more colonizing: folks already live here. How we enforce that doctrine, well, just putting it out there is a very good first step. Fair warning. There's a doctrine in place out there, so, before you even come, you know that you risk a serious hot foot if you push development. Want to come live here? Sure. It is a free country. Want to make money, mine the community, mine the lands and the forests, turn them into golf course grass and 4 lane highways to bring people out here to get unstressed but the trip out here not to mention the huge second home mortgage just adds more stress and spreads it around like a bad cough.
If it matters enough, there would be, and should be, civil disobedience,, directed toward recalcitrant elected and appointed officials and against those lamprey-like investors that sneak past the electric shields that are supposed to guard the fresh waters. Maybe a Berry modeled Monkey Wrench Gang. If it matters, then it matters. If not, it don't.

Bumper stickers for our times:
Hey. It's New York
California: it used to be around here someplace
USA: we do war good
New Jersey: we'll drive anyway we like
Lets, see no... the first one? Well, NY has an attitude, sometimers referred to poetically as a "NY state of mind".
The second? I remember California in the 1970. We were in Palo Alto, and San Francisco, Napa Valley, Marin County. It was gorgeous. Now, NY has it all beat to shit. Really. So much of that 1970 California is just gone! But now its our turn: gold courses, gambling, planned communities are moving into the Catskill watershed, and its the beginning of the end. Sweet, but short.
The USA one? The military budget of the United States is larger than the combined total of the NEXT 20 COUNTRIES in the world, ranked by military spending. Tell me that's not a business.
And NJ? Well, the Jersey Loonies travel break out of the state pretty regularly on weekends, spreading out into the New England, and one should be wary.

Iraq is using food, keeping its people fed, to quell discontent! Boy, they better not try that stuff on Americans? Seeing that everyone gets food? Shit, they could even get people jobs, and health care. No WAY Amercans are going to fall for that!

We lost a shuttle
Last time, we lost it because we Reagan was in a hurry and it was too cold and the design specifications for the seals were greatly exceeded. This time? budget cuts? Maybe its the people who don't like taxes? I'm thinking, everybody that is happy with tax cuts and doesn't really know or care what got cut, they don't get to weep. No, its not blame. Its just taking responsibility. And it would be perfectly reasonable to say "Aw, shit. But the costs to make it fool proof? Just too damn high. Its cheaper to loose one every so often"

On the notion of the state of the union
Before one determines the health of the patient, one must have some measure of what health means. Before one takes a patients temperature, one must know the desired one, the correct one.
When we ask of the state of the union, we should first know, what should it be? Where do we want it to be. The state of the union is then a statement of where we are relative to that goal and some statement of policies and plans to course toward that goal.

Democracy for all

Democracy for all?
There is some notion of the American form of democracy and that we are so certain that it is THE way to go that we are willing to force fit it onto every society in the world, like Christian Evangelists and everyone else is a godless heathen. How could we NOT be right?
A few lines from the book Ataturk: The biography of the founder of Modern Turkey, by Andrew Mango.
What we are looking at is the period before and then during the adoption of a constitutional form of government July 24, 1908
"What strikes a Bulgarian when he enters Turkey is, before everything else, the air of freedom that one breathes. Under a theoretically despotic government, one definitely enjoys more freedom than in a constitutional state..."
Here too:
"At no point did this simple but grand design fit an easygoing state made up of largely self-governing religious communities, tribes and provinces, held together by a manipulative soverign, where authority was exercised by traditional leaders of society, where exceptions to rules were well understood...
And here:
"Where we went wrong was in believing that the constitution was the goal. We thought that once the goal was reached there would be nothing more to do"