Monday, January 28, 2008

"Reality is Totally Different"

I haven't written much about Iraq lately (it's still bad), but I've still been following the chaos. I'm sure that shrub will talk about "progress" in tonights SOTU address, but read this piece by Dahr Jamail (a great independant journalist) to get a better sense of the reality of Iraq:

Iraqis, of course, continue to witness firsthand this "decisive stand against chaos and terror." In our world, however, they are largely mute witnesses. Americans may argue among themselves about just how much "success" or "progress" there really is in post-surge Iraq, but it is almost invariably an argument in which Iraqis are but stick figures -- or dead bodies. Of late, I have been asking Iraqis I know by email what they make of the American version (or versions) of the unseemly reality that is their country, that they live and suffer with. What does it mean to become a "secondary issue" for your occupier?

In response, Professor S. Abdul Majeed Hassan, an Iraqi university faculty member wrote me the following:

"The year of 2007 was the bloodiest among the occupation years, and no matter how successful the situation looks to Mr. Bush, reality is totally different. What kind of normal life are he and the media referring to where four and a half million highly educated Iraqis are still dislocated or still being forcefully driven out of their homes for being anti-occupation? How can the people live a normal life in a cage of concrete walls [she is referring to concrete walls being erected by the Americans around entire Baghdad
neighborhoods], guarded by their kidnappers, killers, and occupation forces? What kind of normal life can you live where tens of your relatives and your beloved ones are either missing or in jail and you don't even know if they are still alive or, after being tortured, have been thrown unidentified in the dumpsters?

"What kind of normal life can you live when you have to bid farewell to your family each time you go out to buy bread because you don't know if you are going to see them again? What is a normal life to Mr. Bush? If we're lucky, we get a few hours of electricity a day, barely enough drinking water, no health care, no jobs to feed our kids…

"Little teenage girls are given away in marriage because their families can't protect them from militias and troops during raids. Women cannot move unescorted anymore. What kind of educations are our children getting at universities where 60% of the prominent faculty members have been driven out of their jobs -- killed or forced to leave the country by government militias? Is it normal that areas [on the outskirts of Baghdad] like Saidiya and Arab Jubour are bombed because the occupation forces are afraid to enter the areas for fear of the resistance? It is always easier to control ghost cities. It becomes very peaceful without the people."

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174886/dahr_jamail_missing_voices_in_the_iraq_debate



The life of the Iraqi people is not getting better. Shrub is either lying or delusional.

Mohammad Mahri'i, an Iraqi journalist, has a rather different take on the situation: "The problem with Bush is that his people believe him every time he lies to them," he writes me. "His reconstruction teams are invisible and I wish they could show me one inch above the ground that they built."

Jamail's piece is long, with many sources, and well worth reading in full.

Maki al-Nazzal, an Iraqi political analyst from Fallujah who has been forced to live abroad with his family, thanks to ongoing violence and the lack of jobs or significant reconstruction activity in his city, which was three-quarters destroyed in a U.S. assault in November 2004, offered me his thoughts on the Western mainstream coverage of Iraq.

"The media should not follow the warlords' and politicians' propaganda. It is our duty to search for the truth and not repeat lies like parrots. The U.S. occupation is bad and no amount of media propaganda can camouflage the mess inside occupied Iraq. We are ashamed of the local and Western media [for] marketing the naked lies told by generals and politicians. Comparing two halves of 2007 is ridiculous.

"Bush and his heroes, [head of the Coalition Provisional Authority L. Paul] Bremer, [Secretary of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld and now Petraeus always lied to their people and the world about Iraq. U.S. soldiers are getting killed on a daily basis and so are Iraqi army and police officers. Infrastructure is destroyed. In a country that used to feed much of the Arab world, starvation is now the norm. It is ironic that Iraq was not half as bad during the 12 years of sanctions. Our liberation has pushed us into a state of unprecedented corruption."



Oh, and just the usual daily news report:Roadside bomb kills five U.S. soldiers in Iraq. And there is a real potential that things will get worse:

The U.S.-led security crackdown, along with a Sunni revolt against al-Qaida in Iraq and a cease-fire order by radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr have been credited with a dramatic drop in attacks in the capital.

However, influential members of al-Sadr's movement said Monday they have urged the anti-U.S. Shiite cleric to follow through with threats not to extend the cease-fire when it expires next month, a move that could jeopardize the recent security gains.

The Sadrists are angry over the insistence of U.S. and Iraqi forces on continuing to hunt down so-called rogue fighters who ignored the six-month order, which was issued in August. Al-Sadr's followers claim this is a pretext to crack down on their movement.

The maverick cleric announced earlier this month that he would not renew the order unless the Iraqi government purges "criminal gangs" operating within security forces he claims are targeting his followers.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-01-28-07-52-20


The cease fire by al-Sadr has been as big a part in the reduction of violence as the "surge." Ignore shrub's words. We need to leave Iraq.

Stop Scaring Me

Tonight, shrub will be doing the one thing that he's done in compliance with the constitution; that is to deliver the SOTU address. But this from the front page of the WaPo makes me nervous:

That is the problem Bush faces as he prepares to deliver his seventh and probably final State of the Union address tonight.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/01/27/ST2008012702356.html?hpid=topnews


I've generally been dismissive of conspiracy theories that shrub might somehow remain in power beyond his two terms by creating some sort of "state of emergency." I think shrub would like to get out of the pressure and leave the mess for his successor to deal with. That, and there should be open revolt if the shrub/cheney tried to pull a coup.
But now I have to indulge in some paranoia: do the Washington insiders know something that I don't?
Added: OK, there is another explanation:

Here's the skinny:

Finally, President George W. Bush is set to deliver his next State of the Union Address on January 28, 2008. It is widely believed that this will be his last address before leaving office on January 20, 2009, but assuming this is incorrect. Bush has the right to deliver either a written or oral State of the Union in the days immediately before leaving office in 2009. Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Johnson, Ford, and Carter chose to do this. Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Clinton, chose not to.

Sunday, January 27, 2008

Household Weather

Today has been a mix of sleet, snow, and steady rain. As I've posted before, the roof on my house leaks (and has for a number of years). The landlord has talked about replacing it many times, while new leaks continue to appear. Today, we've added new leaks...in some very inconvenient places. The household computer wizard gained a leak directly over the household server, and Zymurgian got one over his monitor, which has led to much rearranging. So far, no leaks in my room, which leaves it about the only room in the house without buckets.
We're having a rain party in a while, so please feel free to stop by (BYOB).

Balancing Idealism and Cynicism

I'm a political junkie, and I'm always trying to balance somewhere between idealism and cynicism. It's a challenge that I face every election cycle. I know I'm not alone as I look around the blogs, where some believe in their candidate, while others believe that the system is rigged and the corporate oligarchs control our choices.
Both are true.
As an idealist, I work every election to insure that (at least in my locale) all the votes are accurately counted, and that all eligible voters get to vote. Zymurgian chides me for "believing in the system", and in a way I do. Our political system is seriously flawed, but it functions adequately if enough people get involved.
On the cynical side, the corporate media has tight control of the messages, and the voters are left to choose between media approved candidates. Can't upset the status quo.
Over the years, I've worked on dozens of campaigns, and most have lost. I'm at it again this campaign season, ever optimistic. In the end, I usually end up voting for the "lesser of two evils", like most voters. It's a sad, frustrating reality (I admit that I'm much more liberal than the general public). The Democrats repeatedly disappoint me, but the Republicans are even worse.
Is our political system broken? I struggle with this question. Compared to political systems throughout history, ours works pretty well overall. But it seems to be failing most of us, "the people." I'd love to see a true "populist" party that worked for "the people", but the vast majority of "the people" don't seem to care enough to get involved. Can't say I blame them; politics in this era is a nasty, brutish, slimy process without instant gratification. "American Idol" is more entertaining and less time consuming.
Despite my mixed feelings, I keep re-entering the fray. I keep telling myself "if I don't do it, who will?", but that may just be the rationalization of an addict. I do believe that we'll end up doing the right thing, after exhausting all other options.

South Carolina Results

Obama won big, by a much larger margin than the polls predicted. But I'm most struck by the huge turnout. Over half a million votes! In each of the early primaries Democrats have had record, or near record, turnout:

Almost final results:

99% of precincts reporting

Barack Obama295,09154%
Hillary Clinton141,12827%
John Edwards93,55219%
Dennis Kucinich5510%

And some other numbers:

  • Total 2008 South Carolina Primary Turnout

    Democratic: about 530,322
    Republican: about 446,000

  • Obama received more votes than all Democrats in the 2004 South Carolina Democratic Primary (292,383)
  • Obama received more votes in this primary than George W. Bush received in 2000 when he beat John McCain (Bush won 293,652 votes)
  • Obama has won more votes than McCain and Huckabee won in South Carolina--combined.


As with the Iowa caucus, Obama won big with younger voters. The "youth vote" has long been the holy grail for Democrats, and Obama seems to be getting them to actually show up and vote:

* For all the recent speculation about race and gender, here’s a tip about the real divide: age.

Among voters between 18 and 24, Obama beat Clinton, 66% to 25% (a 41-point gap).
Among voters between 25 and 29, Obama beat Clinton, 70% to 21% (a 49-point gap).
Among voters between 30 and 39, Obama beat Clinton, 62% to 23% (a 39-point gap).
Among voters between 40 and 49, Obama beat Clinton, 61% to 25% (a 36-point gap).
Among voters between 50 and 64, Obama beat Clinton, 51% to 26% (a 25-point gap).
Among voters 65 and older, Clinton beat Obama, 40% to 32% (an 8-point gap in the other direction).

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/


There is still a long way to go, but the current trends seem to indicate how toxic shrub has been for the Republicans. Now we'll see if that carries over on Feb. 5th:

That all changes in 10 days' time, when New York, Illinois and California
are among the 15 states holding primaries in a virtual nationwide primary. Another seven states and American Samoa will hold Democratic caucuses on the same day.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080127/ap_on_el_pr/south_carolina_primary

I'll be getting a first hand view on Feb. 5th, as I'll be running a polling place on the local University campus. If the youth turnout in Arizona is high, I'll be among the first to know.

Side note: I'll be posting later on my views of each of the candidates. I'm not endorsing anybody, and my own preferred candidates are out of the race, but since I have a blog I'm allowed to share my opinions.

Saturday, January 26, 2008

Beyond Irony

My last post has been trumped for irony points. Steve at No More Mister Nice Blog found this:

Buttocks:

The Federal Communications Commission has proposed a $1.4 million fine against 52 ABC Television Network stations over a 2003 broadcast of cop drama NYPD Blue.

The fine is for a scene where a boy surprises a woman as she prepares to take a shower. The scene depicted "multiple, close-up views" of the woman's "nude buttocks" according to an agency order issued late Friday....

The agency said the show was indecent because "it depicts sexual organs and excretory organs -- specifically an adult woman's buttocks."

The agency rejected the network's argument that "the buttocks are not a sexual organ."

Dangerous chemicals:

Dallas gas plant fined $6,300 in July blast that injured 2

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has fined Southwest Industrial Gases $6,300 after an acetylene gas explosion at its facility near downtown Dallas spawned spectacular fireballs and sent metal canisters flying over freeways in July.

OSHA said Southwest Industrial exposed employees to serious hazards that were likely to cause death or serious physical harm, according to citations issued Thursday and released Friday.


I know that America is extremely prudish when it comes to nudity (something I've never understood), but $1.4 million for a butt? $6,300 for hazards that were likely to cause serious injury or death? Glad that we have our priorities straight.
And, no butt is worth $1.4 million.

Irony

Not much to post today, but I read an item I found ironic: Barry Bonds got his degree from ASU in 1986 in "criminology".

Friday, January 25, 2008

I Hate Ice



I really am cool living with snow. Snow is stable. But I have a very negative relationship with ice. Ice is evil. It wants you to fall down. Snow is liberal; you can fall into it without getting hurt. Ice is conservative; it wants to throw you down and hurt you.

We had a mild snow. But then it froze.

Another Friday, Another Boobie



Happy Friday. I've got more snow this morning, so "Boobie-land" is making me jealous.

Without Comment

Economic Stimulus



(Image stolen from distributorcap, who has a great post up on the same topic)
Isn't it nice to see our government in action, racing to address our economic crisis? Now we can all stop worrying...right?
The problem is that none of the current stimulus plans address the fundamental problems facing the economy. It's a band-aid and some soothing words, when major surgery is called for.
It started with the week on the stock market. Can't have investors in a panic. So the Fed cut rates, effectively punting the market drop to a future date. But the stock market is not the economy. Sure, a lot of people have their retirement invested, but the big money is in the hands of corporate speculators. Most of us paycheck-to-paycheck types are only marginally effected by the Dow Jones numbers (although I actually talked to a tourist woman on Tuesday who was moaning that her "portfolio lost $19,000" in one week. You can imagine how sympathetic I felt). Simply put, the rate cut protected the rich from reality for a while. It doesn't solve anything.
Likewise, the bailout of bond insurers is a short term fix. The bond market is what allows the government (municipal and national) to borrow money. Without the guarantee of bond insurance, the government is bankrupt. Given the decline in the value of the dollar, this, too, is only postponing the inevitable.
Then we have the "stimulus" of "rebates", where a lot of people get some money that the government hopes they'll spend. Given the amount of debt that the average American has, they will spend it quickly. And they'll still have more debt. It's a nice "feel good" tactic that may take the public mind off the problems for a while, but it wont solve anything.
There is only one way to actually repair the American economy, and that is to invest in strengthening the domestic infrastructure. If the billions were poured into alternative energy, reducing the dependence on foreign oil and creating thousands of domestic jobs, it would strengthen the dollar. If a massive WPA style project toward domestic sustainability were initiated, it would create new opportunities for average Americans to improve their quality of life, and their future. In short, we need to be planting, not eating, our "seed corn" to use a native analogy.
Oh, and that $11 billion a month we're spending in Iraq?

Thursday, January 24, 2008

Another Corrupt Congress-Critter


Ah, I do enjoy it when one of the corrupt congress-critters gets caught. Today, it's John Shadegg:

The Arizona Democratic Party is accusing Republican U.S. Rep. John Shadegg of using his political-action committee to skirt laws that limit the amount of money donors can give a candidate.

Democrats say they have drafted a complaint to the Federal Election Commission, but Shadegg maintains nothing was done improperly and doubts whether the FEC will take action.

At issue is money that elections records show was transferred from Shadegg's
political-action committee into his election campaign.

Two Valley businessmen who made the maximum allowable individual donations to Shadegg's campaign in 2007 also wrote additional $5,000 checks to Shadegg's PAC, Leadership for America's Future. Eleven days later, on June 26, the PAC wrote two identical $5,000 checks to Shadegg.

Normally, such a transfer would not be noticed among thousands of dollars in contributions. But in the same reporting period, Shadegg's PAC received no other contributions and paid out only the $10,000.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0121shadegg0121.html

Have a pig, John. If you're unsure what it means, ask your colleague Rick Renzi. He's earned 4 tattooed pig awards.

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

Only 935?


The shrub administration told 935 lies in the lead up to the war with Iraq, according to a new study:


WASHINGTON - A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements
about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.


The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."


The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.


The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.


"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."


Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.


Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/misinformation_study


The total number seems low to me, but I admit that I never attempted to catalog all the lies. During the run up to the war, Sweaterman and I tried to keep some sort of track of all the lies, but I think we gave up in disgust. We settled on "everything they're saying is a lie", and we were right.
Can we impeach now?

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

The Economic Ride

In spite of today's news, I don't pretend to know much of anything about the economy. Except that it looks like a very big mess right now. While the news seems to be focusing on the stock market today, the actual problem is much more wide spread. Some observations:
The housing/mortgage crisis: It's bad enough that 2 million people could lose their homes. What's equally ominous is that the housing bubble has been the main thing propping up the U.S. economy since shrub took office. Beside those losing their homes, some 44.5 million Americans will watch the value of their homes diminish. That's a lot of lost capital.
Oil and the dollar: While oil is back down to around $88 a barrel, that is still a very high energy price. Coupled with the dollar's drop against other major currencies, the reliance on foreign resources will be impossible to maintain.
The deficit: Even worse than the mortgage crisis is the ongoing U.S. deficit crisis that has soared out of control under shrub's watch. The U.S. national debt now stands at a staggering $9 trillion. That amounts to over $30,000 for every man, woman and child in the country. The Iraq War fiasco will add another $2 trillion to the nation's debt. All of this is being financed by foreign investment, but as the dollar weakens that option will be less available. The financial and stock markets are collapsing as a result.
The Republican philosophy of tax cuts and spending cuts has weakened America's infrastructure, so that there is almost no domestic support system in place for those about to lose the life they've known.
For myself, in the words of Dylan "when you ain't got nothing, you got nothing to lose." While I've been very frustrated by the slow local job market, I don't need very much to get by. I have no dependants or debts. But most of the people I know have a lot more at risk, and I'm worried for them. They are among the huge number of Americans facing a very scary situation.

You're Going to Need a Bigger Helicopter....

...Holy Jeebus!

Stocks plunge on recession fears

In the first hour of trading, the Dow was down 293.70, or 2.43 percent, at 11,805.60. The Dow was last below 12,000 in March 2007.


It's down 2.8% now and I've barely been following. NASDAQ down 3.0%

Shite. Shite, shite, shite.

Well, it's early. Let's see if they can recover or if they end up suspending trading because the market tries to move even lower even faster.

Also, for more (and, much better) analysis, check out BondDad's blog at (http://www.bonddad.blogspot.com/), but I'd have to say this kind of correction is long overdue.

But, putting Medicare and Social Security in the hands of Wall Street (like Bush wanted to do) doesn't sound like that smart of an idea now, does it?

Last Night's Debate

The "truce" of the Nevada debate didn't last, and the gloves came off. This was by far the most contentious debate so far, and the pettiness of the bickering will keep the talking heads entertained for days.
I was disgusted. As Clinton and Obama attacked each other over ever more minor nuance, I wanted to grab them both and say "stop doing the Republicans work for them." If this keeps up, the eventual nominee will go into the general election pre-damaged for the Republican nominee. Yes, the Republicans will attack the Democratic candidate with all manner of slime (it's what they do), and we should be prepared for it, but eating our own doesn't benefit the party or the country.
Here's Josh Marshall's take on it:

It's hard for me to think of much good from this debate. If you view debates like a boxing match, I guess it was lively and perhaps entertaining, in the sense that a good boxing match can be, though the fighting was more intense than well executed. But that's only if you have no investment in the outcome. If you're watching this with a mind to wanting one of these three to be president in 2009, as I do, it wasn't a great thing to watch.

One observation stands out to me from this debate. Hillary can be relentless and like a sledgehammer delivering tendentious but probably effective attacks. But whatever you think of those attacks, Obama isn't very good at defending himself. And that's hard for me to ignore when thinking of him as a general election candidate.

In most of these cases -- such as the Reagan issue -- I think Obama's remarks have been unobjectionable but ambiguous and certainly susceptible to both misunderstanding and intentional misrepresentation. And if you're going to talk like that -- nuance, as we used to say -- be able to defend it when people play with your words. And I don't see it.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/064349.php


It's this type of mud-slinging that leaves so many Americans disgusted with politics, and leads to the lousy government we currently have.

We deserve better.

Added: I agree with Dave Johnson:

Now with that said let me add that our candidates should all be going after Republicans and defending each other. I will strongly support candidates who have an instinct to defend fellow Democrats against Republican attacks, in any race for any office. I will strongly support candidates who make it clear that they understand that the current Republican party has devolved into something unknown in American history, something dangerous and undemocratic and particularly dishonest.

http://seeingtheforest.com/

Any of the three Democrats will be an improvement on the current administration, but first we have to win.

Monday, January 21, 2008

A Scary Thing



The Russians are breeding super cockroaches in space!

VORONEZH, January 17 (RIA Novosti) - Cockroaches conceived in space onboard the Russian Foton-M bio satellite have developed faster and become hardier than 'terrestrial' ones, a research supervisor said on Thursday.

The research team has been monitoring the cockroaches since they were born in October. The scientists established that their limbs and bodies grew faster.

"What is more, we have found out that the creatures... run faster than ordinary cockroaches, and are much more energetic and resilient," Dmitry Atyakshin said.

http://en.rian.ru/science/20080117/97179313.html


I'm having an episode of paranoia at the very idea.

Sunday, January 20, 2008

One More Year

The countdown begins. Only 366 more days.

Know Your Elements

As I spend the day recovering, and preparing for football, I found a fun guide to the Periodic Table of Elements. http://www.periodictable.com/. Fun for all us geeks.

Saturday, January 19, 2008

More Trees

(picture taken by Zymurgian on the San Juan river)
Pruning more apple trees today. Yesterday was cold, but not too bad as long as I kept moving, and today we should get above freezing, so I wont complain.
Strange Bumper sticker seen yesterday:

"I feel like walking on a pile of baby ducks"
I have no idea what that means, but it sounds way too angry.
Also, a graffiti sighting that I enjoyed:

"The Bush Doctrine: Speak incoherently and hit people with a stick"

Enjoy your day, and if your in Nevada or South Carolina, be political.