Blog Archives 3

Dec. 30, 2007 Attila bin Laden, Osama the Hun

Osama bin Laden's family is well-known by the Bushes, and Osama was first trained and supplied through Pakistan's ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) in the 1970's, itself supplied and advised by the CIA. The ISI is now used by Musharraf, but it also has ties to al Qaeda, and the Taliban. It's possible that it knew about and collaborated with, or carried out, Bhutto's assassination. Many Pakistanis believe so.

What Attila did in the 440's was to weaken the Roman Empire through direct attacks and demands for tribute; he almost prevailed, first in Gaul and then in Italy, and would have continued his attacks if he hadn't died suddenly.

Just like Osama, Attila began his reign by renting out warriors to the Empire. Just like Osama, Attila wanted to wreck western civilization, although not for religious reasons: he was a nomad; he believed urban civilization was evil; Osama believes the same of infidels, which includes the West, and secular Muslims everywhere.

Attila was stopped in Gaul, much the way al Qaeda in Iraq has been slowed: Aetius formed temporary alliances with insurgent Visigoths, the US with insurgent Sunnis (the Awakening); in Italy it was probably famine and plague that stopped Attila, not the Pope; I don’t hope for a repeat with Osama in Pakistan.

Nevertheless, the example of Attila is instructive. While he did not destroy Rome, he set it up for destruction. Romans responded militarily to barbarians; they tried to close their empire and did not successfully integrate barbarian peoples, although barbarians were a rising force and Rome was a declining one (Romans had integrated them earlier: Latinizing the Celts in Gaul and Britain, for example).

In Pakistan, it is civil society which should be integrated to combat religious zealots, but the US supports Musharraf, who suppresses the lawyers, et al, while his military (with massive US aid) is ineffectual against the Pakistani Taliban/al Qaeda. US troops would only compound the problem.

If Osama controlled Pakistan's nukes, would he try to destroy Western civilization? Eighth century Islamist predecessors in North Africa destroyed the aqueducts and the Roman economy even the Vandals had preserved; North Africa is only recovering now.

Dec. 28, 2007 Pakistan and Attila the Hun

Meanwhile, our "ally" suppressed lawyers, courts, democracy activists, and a free press, while turning a blind eye to elements within the military which supported or aided the Taliban/al Qaeda Islamist extremists in the northwest of the country (and elsewhere), and, after the military's desultory attempts at containing them, Musharraf actually agreed to a truce with the extremists that was only broken when the latter began to control the Swat valley near the capital and the Red Mosque within it.

In other words, our "ally" has enabled the extremists to gain more and more territory and power, while repressing the popular (and secular) forces which would most effectively combat them. It is not military force, but democracy, the rule of law and economic progress that would stop Taliban/al Qaeda advances toward controlling a nuclear-armed Pakistan.

The impulses of Bush/Cheney, Republican presidential wannabes and "tough-minded" Democrats will be to offer troops, or military assistance to Pakistan; that's the last thing it needs. It needs peace, not war, politics, not repression, and equitable economic development; it was the only Asian country in which the poor did not gain at all in the last 20 years.

President Kennedy said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

However, imperial thinking has little patience for the messiness of democratic politics. The only popular leader left in Pakistan, Nawaz Sharif, is tainted with corruption. But it is possible that among the lawyers, judges and democracy activists now languishing in prison or house arrest there would be other, cleaner popular leaders, like the jailed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Pakistan shares with India a long legacy of democratic politics and the rule of law. It could be messy, but democracy would be a better bet than dictatorship to diffuse Pakistan's tensions.

But Musharraf hangs onto power and is reluctant to open the jails; it is likely that our security-obsessed Bush/Cheney administration won't push too hard. Yet, an extremist takeover in Pakistan would be equivalent to the emergence of Attila the Hun in the fifth century. Here is one of those junctures in history, in which a short-sighted obsession with military security (on the part of Musharraf, the Pentagon and Bush) could push Pakistan over the edge.

Dec. 27, 2007 Congress D+

Disappointed? YES!

"The best lack all conviction and the worst are full of passionate intensity."

The worst step was taken first by the new Congressional leadership when new Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, declared Impeachment "off the table," and got new Judiciary Chair, John Conyers, to acquiesce.

Big mistake! When you deal with bullies, you don't telegraph you're not going to hit back, that you're simply going to ignore their previous bad behavior. That's what Pelosi did. Did she really believe Bush's rhetoric that they would now have an era of "bipartisanship?"

So, Bush continued everything he had been doing, including demanding blank check funding for Iraq, torture, indefinite detention, signing statements--even with the just passed budget bill--for which he declared he would not be bound by Congressional decisions, cover-ups and the politicization of the civil service even in sensitive departments like the Department of Justice. He even scared Congress (with trumped up terror alerts) into passing a temporary legalization of government powers to wiretap without warrants. The only thing that changed was that Bush, allied with an intransigent Republican minority in Congress, blocked almost every positive bill Democrats tried to pass, with a record number of filibusters and a near record number of vetoes, all in one session of Congress. Bipartisanship!

The dynamic was wrong from the get-go. By giving Bush and his cronies a get-out-of-jail-free card before the session even began, the limp-wristed Democratic leadership had set up the whole congressional disaster. Bush is now marginally less unpopular than Congress: Congress's approval rating is in the low 20's.

We are still in Iraq, with even more troops; Guantanamo is still open, the privatization of war proceeds apace, oil companies are still subsidized; wind and solar are not; the rich still are not only taxed less than the rest of us, but aided more, and the Intelligence "community" is doing pretty much what it pleases.

And so we lurch onward to disasters predictable and non. Bush still blocks any action to curb global warming, whether it is in Bali or actions by states--the recent EPA decision (see blog on 12/21)--and his administration is still in the process of forcing states to adopt election machines controlled by his partisans.

Autocracy, imperialism and fascism could all continue to grow here if the next election is stolen, as were the ones in 2000 and 2004. Then, we will look even more like fifth century Rome.

Congress needs to begin wide-ranging investigations into the legal and Constitutional violations by Bush-Cheney now! Impeachment should be "on the table."

Dec. 21, 2007 States Rights Become STATE's Right

The Republican Bush administration freely casts states rights aside. Bush's No Child Left Behind is a more intrusive intervention into local and state powers in education than any Democrat ever attempted. HAVA (Help America Vote Act) is more active interference in state elections than was ever tried before, either. New York State, the only holdout, is now under suit by the Justice Department because it refuses to use un-certified machines, since so many have been de-certified as unreliable by other states, but the Federal Court will force New York to use them.

And now, the EPA, for the first time ever, has denied a waiver request under the Clean Air Act. The waiver requested? For power plants to pollute more? No, no! California (and 16 other states waiting behind it) asked to be allowed to adopt more stringent air pollution standards for cars and trucks, in order to reduce pollution and especially CO2, as part of their attempts to reduce emissions and curb global warming. Waiver denied: Governor Schwarznegger had spearheaded the request.

It isn't states rights the Republican administration favors; it's corporate rights, above all, rights it has asserted in venues as disparate as HAVA, New Orleans "reconstruction" and the Iraq occupation. It all gets back to my theme: the selfish class. See my e-book available onsite. The administration favors whatever corporate elite can profit through large corporations.

Elections: buy expensive touch-screen machines, bolster election machine companies bottom line. Education: buy expensive tests and equipment, create demand for large corporations specializing in the ed-biz. "Clean Air:" make sure that big oil and auto companies are happy. New Orleans: bring in large construction companies, destroy public housing, put up higher priced residences and don't hire local people who need the work. Iraq Occupation: protect oil for US companies, privatize forces, contract for expensive equipment, and don't employ locally.

The historical parallels look like Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany themselves wannabe reconstructed Roman Empires with close alliances between big business and the state. There have even been contemporary instances of corporations using slave labor, like the Nazis, viz in the construction of the new Imperial residence being built in Baghdad for the American "Ambassador," (or is it Viceroy)?

The new State built by Bush protects corporations above all: I fear the 2008 elections (controlled by them) will continue the same.

Dec. 19, 2007 Why the Writers Strike is Important

In the late Roman Empire, writers were mostly panegyrists, rewarded by the powers-that-be, which is why the Empire was flying blind; there were no objective accounts of events. If today's writers have to depend on the largesse of large corporations, we will cultivate similar blindness.

The writers are not demanding a pay raise as such; they are demanding that they share in the revenues their work creates when it is shown on other venues: chiefly, the Internet. As staff writers, they don't own copyright, but, if they did, each separate use of their production would be negotiated for some kind of compensation: that's what I do when I'm negotiating for a free-lance writer on a book contract. I'm a contract advisor and grievance officer for the National Writers Union. What the WGA is asking for is a bit like a novelist demanding half of the advance for rights in a particular language (a normal amount in a book contract); it's his creation, after all. And staff writers also create--the words, the jokes, the skits, and the scripts that make TV and Hollywood into huge money-makers.

It may be true that revenues from new media are difficult to predict, but the WGA is NOT asking for set amounts; they are demanding a percentage share for writers of whatever revenues are earned. Now, the WGA is asserting its right to bargain with each production company individually. Already, David Letterman is trying to cut a deal, and others, like Jon Stewart, are likely to follow. The Alliance for Motion Picture and Television Producers claims that it will maintain a solid front, that production companies will keep them posted, but each company also wants to keep (or build) their audience. The WGA has, I think, crafted a clever strategy. As this snowballs, the AMPTP will realize that they can't stonewall on this forever: they will have to accept the idea of fairness, even if it means their bottom lines might be trimmed by a percent or so. Corporations losing against a labor union! Maybe this will be the beginning of a new era. Would that the Democratic majority in Congress could carry out strategy like this!

Dec. 17, 2007 Why Torture?

And Mukasey at DOJ does not want Congress mucking about in his territory, so he's not cooperating; he's running his own investigation--to prevent a criminal prosecution, if possible.

I do wonder why the administration insists it must, er, not define its terms on torture, why it insists on torturing, but using other words. This is not a question of why they don't admit that waterboarding is torture; that's simply to avoid liability to criminal prosecution. But why do they insist on these "enhanced techniques?" I don't think it's really about their (claimed) belief that they can extract information (24 style) before the ticking bomb goes off more effectively. No, I think their motives are more complicated, since they know perfectly well that torture is abhorrent to most Americans. It's not that they're certain that torture will get them the answers: there are many interrogators who claim that torture is counter-productive even disregarding its moral repugnance; it certainly is legally counterproductive: evidence obtained therefrom is inadmissable.

But people are being taught that torture is "necessary." There are parallels here, between Roman gladiatorial contests and contemporary movies and computer games that graphically portray violence; they make it more the norm, not so out of the realm of possibility--and therefore more justifiable for the authorities. Imperial edicts were quite explicit on requiring sadistic punishment, but then the people saw the same tortures carried out in the coliseum; it was entertainment.

The real question is: why the insistence on these methods, on asserting that the CIA should have wide latitude in "techniques?"

When torture becomes an acceptable tool of the state, it can terrorize its citizens just by the fact that it tortures; people don't want to risk waterboarding, or sleep deprivation and stress positions, or other as yet unidentified "enhanced techniques" to challenge the government. The government can use the unspoken threat of torture to silence the opposition. It's not the be-all and end-all of an autocratic state, but it does enhance its power over its citizens/subjects.

Since enhancing the power of the state has been a project of Dick Cheney's ever since Nixon's resignation, this explanation makes logical sense, at least. Torture is a tool in the project to arm the President with unlimited power.

Dec. 14, 2007 "Intelligence" and Rogue Agencies

The CIA, NSA, etc. are government agencies, answerable to the President, i.e. to the civilian head of the government, and overseen by the legislature, the representatives of the people.

Answerable? According to Graham, even the chairs of the intelligence committees were not allowed to take notes, or have staff with them when in closed door sessions--which is where the meat of intelligence oversight necessarily takes place. And, clearly, the intelligence agencies don't tell their "bosses" everything they do, when they don't think it's in their interest.

That's why the revelation of the destroyed videos shouldn't have been a surprise. Those videos were just supposed to go away and be forgotten. It makes me mildly optimistic that the CIA wasn't entirely able to get away with this, but how much more are they getting away with? What kind of world is really out there? Point of disclosure: I trained in NSA when in the Army.

Watching Kit Bond's smugly inexpressive face, hearing Graham's anguish about congressional impotence, I got the feeling that a friend of mine might have been right when he said: "You see the Seal of the United States over the door of CIA headquarters? They're not kidding!" The only change from then to now is that the CIA is only one of a whole panoply of agencies within "The Community." All are institutions with tremendous power and little oversight, and now they are joined by private entities like a new intelligence branch of Blackwater: spies for hire.

One of the weaknesses of the late Roman Empire was the pervasiveness of the secret police: no one felt safe; community bonds were broken; no one helped anyone else; the wealthy preyed on the poor, and no one could stop them.

Is that a vision for our future? I can only hope that the next administration gains control over this government within the government. Some say that JFK was murdered because he tried to do this: the Vietnam escalation followed.

A powerful secret police is necessary when a nation becomes an empire; it's another reason why Americans shouldn't want an empire; true democracies control their secret police. Powerful secret police are also necessary when a nation is no longer a democracy; let's hope that the United States becomes one again.

Dec. 13, 2007 What if the Taliban Won Pakistan?

The Pakistani military apparently has allowed the militants to grow stronger to build a more convincing case for garnering military aid from the US, but it's a dangerous game; at each step the militants grow politically, both terrorizing the local population and winning them over with moral rectitude and social services. In the Swat valley, not that far from the capital, the population was cowed by the Taliban and is now angry at the army for the destruction it caused when driving the militants back into the mountains.

There is a larger game afoot than Islamic extremists trying to retake Afghanistan, a poor, if strategic country, or gain Iraq, which the US has devastated. Pakistan has one of the largest Muslim populations in the world. And it has the bomb.

So, imagine: a Taliban Pakistan. Iran, even including Ahmadinejad, would be more responsible with an atomic bomb than the Taliban, whose closest ally is al Qaeda. And US policy is making it much more likely.

US support of Musharraf, the military, and the ISI (equivalent to our CIA) actually aids the militants. The military is not monolithic, but there are elements within it and within the ISI that have favored the militants all along. In addition, by supporting the military, the US is complicit in suppressing the Pakistani people, which drives them into the arms of both the Taliban and al Qaeda. Real democracy, with the troops in the barracks, would be the best antidote, but Musharraf is not going to allow that to happen. Nor can the Army deal effectively with the Taliban, since their growing power is as much a political as a military concern.

People within both Pakistan and US intelligence have had a remarkably instrumental approach to the militants: both trained and financed them (including bin Laden) when they first emerged in the Afghan war against the USSR. The CIA persuaded the mujhadeen that Islam was in danger--from the Soviets. CIA pragmatism goes further back: it used the drug trade to support anti-Communist tribals in Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam, and used Iranian militants to finance Nicaraguan rebels (Contras) against the Sandinistas.

The Taliban and al Qaeda controlling Pakistan would be our era's equivalent of Attila the Hun, who drove the barbarians into the failing Roman Empire, and helped destabilize it, leading ultimately to its collapse in 476.

In other words: this is serious.

Dec. 11, 2007 Bush, Sub-Prime and the Investor Class

It's hard to understand the Bush administration's resistance to helping ordinary people. It's not as if Bushies don't help people, just not ordinary people. In other words, Bush is not saying that government should do nothing, but that it shouldn't help people--unless they don't need the help. If they're victims of financial scams perpetrated by fast-talking bankers who elbowed them into loans they couldn't afford, well, tough.

Where does this attitude come from that "it's their own fault?" And therefore no help should be forthcoming--should, mind you, not just won't be. In other words it's a moral stance he thinks he's taking: his predecessors like Hoover termed people like the sub-prime victims "the undeserving poor."

The rich are deserving, of course, which is why what bailout there will be, if the plan works at all, will benefit the banks and investors who perpetrated the mess.

Americans don't like to talk about class warfare, but the Bush administration's treatment of the sub-prime debacle is a prime example of how it works. Only the large financial institutions really matter; the poor and near-poor and soon to be poor don't matter; it's their own fault if they're to be kicked out of their homes; they shouldn't have signed the contracts: caveat emptor. The loan sharks keep their windfalls; the poor slobs lose their homes.

Late Imperial Rome was even more divided by class than present day America: Roman Senators owned almost all the wealth and earned most of the income, but you get the feeling that the Bush administration would have fit right in; the Senators' attitude was similar. Senators bailed out indebted yeomen and the middle class only if they agreed to become their serfs, enhancing the wealth, power and status of the Senators.

When the Roman Empire fell, Senators owned much more wealth than the Emperor, and no one else had anything at all. They didn't use their wealth to bail out the Empire; only to protect themselves, they thought--conniving with the German Palace Guard that took over--but after the fall of Rome, chaos overthrew them, too.

Unconsciously, Bush and his cronies have the same vision--not the fall of the Empire, but the permanence and justification of their superiority, just like those Senators, and to hell with everyone else.

Dec. 10, 2007 Needed--Military Recruitment Disclaimer

Health disclaimers now make it abundantly clear that advertised drugs have many disturbing side effects, including--I love this--"heart attack, stroke and even death." Why pharmaceutical companies air these soft-focus ads with all these disclaimers tacked on the end, I find baffling. I guess they still sell drugs; do people think: "it doesn't apply to me?"

The principle ought to be applied universally, to all ads. Lawn fertilizer and pesticides "may contribute to water-borne pollution and poisons;" cars, that they may be fun to drive, but "are a major contributor to global warming, and can cause 'even death' if driven inappropriately;" liquor "can be addictive, can cause damaging personality disorders--'and even death'-- if used in excess"; detergents may get clothes clean, but there should be a disclaimer about water-borne pollution, and so on.

The most misleading ads are sponsored by the American military: recruitment ads. They don't mention the Afghan or Iraq occupations at all, go on about the skills in which you can be trained, the money for college you can earn, or the character you can build. These ads should have the most heavy-duty disclaimers of all: "Service in the Navy (Army, Marines, Air Force) may result in physical or psychological trauma, loss of limbs, and even death. Moreover, if injury precludes completing your service, you may be responsible for returning part or all of your enlistment or re-enlistment bonus; health care and other benefits as a veteran are not guaranteed."

Can you imagine a recruiter rattling off this litany as fast as he could at the end of an Army ad? People could print up the disclaimer above, and paste it on billboards--especially in target neighborhoods and outside inner-city schools.

It would be a symbolic strike against the imperial juggernaut bankrupting this nation, leading it down the road followed by so many other empires, beginning long before Rome, and most recently, ignominiously, with the Nazi Reich and the Soviet empire.

If recruitment fails, and the draft is reinstituted, popular resistance to imperial adventure could be massive; it could be a more positive end to the American Empire than the one that happened in Rome, when the barbarian mercenary palace guard cozened up to the selfish Senatorial class and doomed Europe to generations of chaos.

Dec. 7, 2007 Is Bush Campaigning for Democrats?

They should do so. In fact, I received an email just yesterday that indicates they will.

Consider merely the recent bills Congress would have passed if there had not been either Presidential vetoes or Republican filibusters blocking them: Funding for Iraq withdrawal; S-CHIP, a "patch" for AMT that would have paid for itself, and now the energy bill; there are a whole list of other measures. In each case they are popular.

Further, when Bush and McConnell insist they are blocking or vetoing bills because they "spend too much money," the argument rings more than a little hollow; they are perfectly ready to demand blank checks for Iraq and they have run massive deficits when fully in charge. Further, there are outrages like huge graft in Iraq (an estimated third of all reconstruction money), and now a billion dollars in weapons unaccounted for. Everett Dirksen, Republican Senator from Illinois, once complained, "A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money!" $26 billion added to SCHIP for disadvantaged children is "irresponsible," but $190 billion for a more and more untenable and mismanaged war is just "supporting the troops."

Republicans can't run on the abuses of programs they blocked. Republicans, along with Bush, can be shown on the campaign trail to be incompetent and uncaring. Democrats can run on what they would have passed if they had a much larger majority and a Democratic President. Creating coalitions against their programs will be much more difficult than if Congress had actually passed them.

If, despite all this, Republicans win next year through electoral manipulation and media deceit, they will confirm: democracy has died; Bush's successor will be a Valentinian III, or worse, presiding over a failing, blinded, bankrupt former empire. Really. They insist on further raiding the budget for tax cuts, continuing war indefinitely, further deregulating an economy despite the sub-prime debacle (caused by deregulation) and doing nothing about global warming.

It's not entirely unrealistic to worry that the next election could be stolen even more easily than it was in 2000, 2002 and probably 2004, since all states but NY will have election machines that can be hacked.

How else explain Bush's political stupidity? That he just doesn't care?

Apres moi le deluge.

Dec. 5, 2007 No War with Iran?

It must be especially galling to both that the intelligence community didn't "play ball;" it not only did not confirm that Iran was building "nucular" weapons, it stated unequivocally that Iran had discontinued its secret weapons program in 2003, which was when the Europeans persisted in negotiating with Iran over its nuclear program (despite Bush/Cheney resistance).

Goddam diplomats! Cheney must be stomping around his offices in a fury!

So, what to do? Bush claims that the National Intelligence Estimate changes nothing, but of course it does, since it makes his (or Cheney's) case for "keeping all options on the table" (meaning air strikes) rather weak. Even the Pentagon has changed its tune, saying that Iran appears to be helping, or no longer hindering, security in Iraq.

The Air Force generals must be unhappy, too. They were hoping for their own war, since the Army and Marines have the main share of the Iraq conflict.

The Roman drive for empire had similar competing elements, although instead of military branches, it was particular generals, some actually putting their own legions into the field, for victory (plunder), and only afterward turned conquered territories over to the "Roman People."

So, for the moment, the imperialists are stymied: they'll have to figure out what to do with the messes in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the former, Bush has already committed the US to have a long-term relationship (see entry of December 5). The use of Executive Agreements rather than Treaties is instructive: Presidents since WWII have shaped US relations with scores, perhaps a hundred countries through Executive Agreements, which they can negotiate and sign unilaterally. Only if Congress overturns them would they be invalidated. In other words, instead of risking a treaty to a two-thirds vote in the Senate, an Executive Agreement commits the nation absent a vote in Congress. There are many more of these agreements than treaties; our relationship with Israel, for example, is entirely defined by them.

It would be entirely appropriate for Congress to insert itself into the negotiations between Prime Minister Maliki and Bush, and to reject any agreement that goes along the lines of the already agreed upon statement of principles.

Otherwise, the US is embarking upon imperial conquest: permanent bases and economic "tutelage:" the insurgency will re-awaken and the US will be bankrupted as was Rome before it--for overreaching.

Nov. 30, 2007 Walk Softly and Carry a Big Dick

What does this tell us about the state of the American psyche? Collectively we're not man enough? Or is that the message spammers are trying to sell? To men, your dick is too small: you're not really much of a man; to women, all those men, their dicks are too small; they're not really men.

A conservative conspiracy! Now that we've persuaded you your dick is too small, you can still prove you're a man--by enlisting in the Army, or the Marines, so you can swagger down Baghdad streets with "your weapon, not your gun," as they taught us in Basic Training.

Not all American soldiers behave in this super-macho way, but a recent poll of returnees from Iraq indicated: over 40% did. Penis-inadequacy may be a way to keep the cannon fodder primed. Not that it plays well in Baghdad.

What else does this spam tell us? Since we're not really man enough, we should just shut up and do what we're told--by our bosses, officers, police, government--by Homeland Security: Big Dick spam as part of the plan to create a totalitarian state. Note: in both Gitmo and Abu Ghraib, sexual humiliation was one of the preferred modes of torture

Emperor Diocletian established a totalitarian regime, the one that eventually led to the fall of the Roman Empire. The reasons given by American conservatives for such a government are similar to the Roman case: fear, inadequacy and weakness. That's why you need a strong ruler. In the case of Rome, this may actually have been true; Romans had been fighting civil wars for most of the previous century, with barbarians at the gates. In the case of the US, it could be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

We really don't have to be so scared. Europeans have had many more terror attacks than the US, but they don't mobilize to attack the rest of the world, or take away people's rights, nor torture them. Too many of them defer to the US, however, allowing us to carry out our renditions and black prisons under their noses. But, at least they're not letting the "terrorist threat" turn them into "small dick" jellyfish.

For far too long Americans have.

Nov. 28, 2007 Bush's Addiction

Just what the American people need! There is a line in a John Prine song about opening a vein, leaking gold for a drug habit: Bush's commitment to Iraq is an addict's response to withdrawal: he just isn't on alcohol or coke, anymore; he's high on war.

It's unfortunate for Democrats, possibly for Republicans, certainly for the American people, that the status of this absurd and awful war will be front and center on the Presidential campaign agenda. There are so many urgent priorities that Americans ought to be considering in the election year: getting out of Iraq is only one of them.

A little list: loss of dollar hegemony; economic instability; peak oil; extreme economic inequality; global warming; mortgaging our future for consumption; health care; decaying infrastructure; constitutional rights and the limits of government; and the role of government as protector, or as terrorizer of the American people.

Yes, the war is important, because it's such a disaster, because it sucks so many resources out of this country when they are so badly needed here. However, the American people deserve better than to be faced only with the alternatives of remaining in Iraq, or getting out--as if there are no other problems this nation faces.

The key phrase in the agreement between Bush and Maliki, really demonstrates what the war is about: profits for American corporations; the rest of us be damned. Emperor Bush will promote US imperial ambitions, regardless of the interests of the Iraqi people, or the American people. Polls of Iraqis, and the Iraqi parliament's statement to the UN both demonstrate opposition to continuing occupation; polls on the war in the US show the same sentiments.

There is some evidence that Americans realize they have been manipulated, as the Vox Populi Romanorum were manipulated into supporting continuing conquests. At least in the US there is growing opposition: that's why Richardson is gaining and Clinton is fading in Iowa: the former is strongest on withdrawal, the latter the most ambiguous.

The connection between domestic and war policy must be made crystal clear: the war subtracts from everything that is more important.

Nov. 16, 2007 Peak Oil and Iraq

The Democrats pass a withdrawal mandate in the House, but it will be blocked in the Senate by Republican threat of filibuster--the Democrats should let them talk instead of quietly withdrawing the bill; a majority in the Iraqi parliament asks the UN to reject a renewal of the US occupation mandate, but the US leans on Iraqi PM Maliki to request the renewal--although only the parliament has that authority. Stories of the success of Iraqi nationalists in combating extremists don't move Bush one iota towards agreeing to troop withdrawals--beyond those necessary simply because of the limited number of soldiers available.

Why? Because of all that oil: Iraq may hold the world's largest reserves, largely still unexploited. Factor that in to the latest news on oil: it comes out, not from Bush, not from the Secretary of Energy, but from Guy Caruso, head of the U.S. government's Energy Information Administration: oil production is NOT going to increase. He stated that not only will the price of gasoline go up another 20 cents (to $3.30 average) but that "We're in a different era with relatively higher real oil prices going out through 2030. Rising demand coupled with 'insufficient' investment, lack of access to resource bases in the U.S. and elsewhere, and a 'dramatic rise in the cost of doing business' are boosting prices." In other words, there's just not a lot of extra oil out there. That means we've reached "Peak Oil."

Is it surprising that the US wants to stay in Iraq when Kurds and maybe Shiites are negotiating sweetheart contracts with oil companies in their regions?

It's a fool's game, though. There still won't be enough oil to power the world; it will still cost more and more; either Iraqis or the oil companies will profit, but we will pay--as we're paying now to control Iraq. We'll also pay later to buy the oil, whether it's from Exxon or Iraq's national oil company.

In the late Roman Empire, Senators thought they could just continue on with their lives, just the way Bush/Cheney and the oil companies think now, but we won't be able to.

Better for us to do two things now: get out of Iraq--as the Iraqis want--and invest in alternative energy (wind, solar, geo-thermal, tides, bio-fuel)--instead of maintaining a failed war in a chaotic country just for Bush and his oilmen.

Nov. 15, 2007 Bush's Chance

Instead of blocking this appropriation (through Senate or Presidential veto), Bush should take advantage of it. After all, as his supporters in Congress note, there has been a significant reduction in violence in Iraq in the last 2 months. Some of this reduction may have been because of the "surge," some is probably due to the near completion of separating sectarian groups, enabling a new stability. But according to returnees from Iraq, most is attributable to the budding alliance of nationalists against extremists. Whether the Sunni and Shiite nationalists were driven together by reaction against the occupation, or through American encouragement (probably both), their incipient alliance could be stillborn, or could turn against the US, if Bush insists on maintaining the occupation. They ought to be encouraged through aid, advice, intelligence and training, and through American forces "standing down" so Iraqis can "stand up."

If Bush-Cheney weren't so bent on "staying the course" regardless, they might see the developments of the preceding months as a green light for withdrawal: Iraqis willing and able to solve Iraq's problems. That was what the surge was for, even if the reduction in violence had other causes. In other words, Bush could declare victory, could start bringing troops home, could defuse the anti-war sentiment that would sink his party's prospects in 2008, and could burnish his likely dismal standing in the history books.

What would Iraq look like if the US left? The Iraqis will have to work that out; it's not for Americans to figure it out for them, but if the US were to withdraw soon and committed significant reconstruction funds, it's likely that Iraq could once again become pro-American (as it was under Saddam until the Kuwait invasion America apparently okayed: see Ambassador April Glaspie).

Like the UK, the US could begin a graceful winding down from empire. If Bush refuses, he'll add to the annals of imperial failures at critical junctures, like Emperor Valens marching to defeat at Adrianople (378) before reinforcements arrived and like the Roman Senate capitulating in 476.

Nov. 14, 2007 Iraq Opportunity

The very success of this program contains major contradictions. The Iraqi government feels threatened by the independent forces beginning to organize under this policy. Largely Sunni, they are at very least infiltrated by former insurgents, who fought not only the US occupation, but also the Shiite-dominated government.

Most of the volunteers, if they are paid at all, are paid by the US military, not by the Iraqi government: the government resists recruiting or recognizing these groups. Stories of PM Maliki screaming at General Petraeus during the summer were largely over these Sunni allies.

Prime Minister Maliki has now made a nod towards including representatives of the Sunni Sheiks in the cabinet, to replace Sunni politicians boycotting it. But Maliki, or the people supporting him, are wary of reinvigorated Sunni Iraqi fighting forces, former oppressors of Shiites, who attacked their Shiite supporters in the past.

Further, outside of Anbar, the ethnic divisions in Iraq are more confused: fighting appears to be ongoing across many divisions in Diyala for example.

Nevertheless, the US/Iraqi government alliance with nationalist sheiks does appear to be reducing al Qaeda in Iraq to a minor presence. In addition, there are conversations ongoing between Shiite and Sunni nationalists.

Since much of the security improvement has been facilitated by, but is not dependent upon US forces, now is an excellent time for the US to announce a clear timetable for withdrawal. After all, the "Surge" was justified to achieve just such an outcome so that political forces could reach workable accommodations; they are beginning to do that.

But the US is too compromised by past missteps in Iraq to have much influence on this process. In fact, if the US announced withdrawal now, that would provide impetus for Shiite and Sunni nationalists to come to agreement on a new, postwar Iraq.

US forces should announce rapid withdrawal: they cannot control Iraq's oil. To attempt to do so will bankrupt the US financially and morally. Similar turning points led to the downfall of so many previous empires, from Athens and Rome to the USSR.

It's time to leave.

Nov. 12, 2007 Don't Celebrate Veterans

Yes, you read that right. We are not at war with al Qaeda, a tiny, extremist, brutal, revolutionary Islamist group. True, the media regularly excoriates its putative leader, Osama bin Laden, the "black sheep" son of Bush's favorite Saudi family, but if we were at war with al Qaeda, we wouldn't have invaded Iraq; we would have invaded the Northwest Territory of Pakistan, as well as Afghanistan.

No, we are "allied" with Pakistan's military dictator, "President" Pervez Musharaff, so we can't invade Pakistan--where al Qaeda is holed up. Supposedly, after $11 billion in aid, Musharaff is "working with us." How many know that he signed a truce with al Qaeda and the Taliban which enabled them to consolidate their hold on the Northwest tribal area? The truce has since broken down, which is why his extremely unpopular martial law is so dangerous, especially since parts of the Pakistani ISI (intelligence services) and military may sympathize with the extremists.

Since we're at war with a tactic, we can continue to be at war, pretty much at the President's discretion, anywhere in the world. No wonder Bush/Cheney say it will last a generation! Even the major Democratic Presidential candidates advocate boosting the size of the military.

This Veterans Day we should realize: the US military has taken over the real reins of power. The military-industrial-security-complex is firmly in control of both parties, and its interest is in maintaining war indefinitely.

Soldiers, who become veterans, are just pawns.

Think of the money involved: just the "regular" military budget is approaching $500 billion a year, but the US has also spent at least $600 billion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, i.e. more than a $100 billion extra each year. China spends about $50 billion yearly on all its defense needs.

War has become the US's major business, as it was in Rome. Many corporations depend on defense contracts for the bulk of their profitable business; there is a whole panoply of new intelligence, security and military services corporations battening off war (Blackwater, Triple Canopy, Halliburton and more), earning "cost-plus" profits; furthermore, the US is dominant in arms and military services exports all over the world.

War counts; veterans don't.

I'm a veteran.

Nov. 5, 2007 Will Pakistan Explode?

Pakistan is big. It may not have oil, but it has A-bombs, a huge population, and a strong and growing Muslim extremist movement. Our man in Pakistan, General/President Pervaez Musharraf, defying US pleas, declared an emergency amounting to martial law. When the Supreme Court voted against his declaration, he put the Chief Justice and most of his colleagues in detention.

We gave Pervaez $10 billion, to promote democracy and fight terror.

Pervaez wants to hold onto power and the Supreme Court might have blocked him by ruling his re-election unconstitutional: he ran as a general in uniform. The detained Chief Justice earlier ruled for the return of Nawaz Sharif, exiled former PM, but Musharraf whisked him away again.

Now, Musharraf is trying to hold this huge country hostage.

Meanwhile, his armed forces are losing the war against al Qaeda and the Taliban emplaced in autonomous tribal areas of the Northwest Frontier. And somebody--the CIA, perhaps--has blown up another house (and 10+ people) in said area and the Taliban and its sympathizers can now be enraged by Musharraf's takeover--and by the missile attack, popularly attributed to the CIA.

The US is heavily involved: Bush has supported Musharraf, despite him being a military dictator, given money, arms and intelligence in return for re-opening Pakistan to democracy, cooperating in GWOT and fighting al Qaeda/Taliban within Pakistan.

One-and-a-half out of three: cooperating (somewhat) on GWOT, seeking out, attacking, then accommodating al Qaeda and the Taliban, then losing parts of his military in the (renewed) struggle.

This kind of tangle with allies got the Roman Empire into trouble over and over again. Musharraf won't lead Paki troops to sack and pillage Washington (Alaric pillaged Rome), but it will tie up even more American military at a time when almost everyone but Bush-Cheney knows: the US is stretched way too thin.

It's the kind of situation that gives imperialists heartburn.

When Alaric attacked, there was nothing Rome could do but retreat. For very different reasons, US options are not very attractive, either.

The US could support Musharraf, and risk driving Pakistan's public into the arms of extremists; it could withhold support and watch Pakistan go down the drain; or it could support opposition leaders Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto, both pro-American, both seen as corrupt.

Iran may or may not want the bomb, but Pakistan already has it. What if al Qaeda took power?

We've been fighting the wrong war.

Nov. 1, 2007 Tax Cut or Tax Hike?

Rangel would jettison the Alternative Minimum tax, but pay for it, and for increases in the standard deduction, the earned income tax credit and the child tax credit, by setting surcharges on incomes over $150-200,000, and increasing them further for incomes above $500,000.

In other words, the proposal is not "the mother of all tax increases," as the ranking Republican on the committee said, nor is it the "largest increase in the history of America," as Mitt Romney claimed. In fact, Rangel's proposal is a first attempt to undo the damage done by Bush's tax cuts: increasing deductions and credits for poor and middle income people, while raising taxes on the wealthy. Yes, a single person earning $150,000 a year, or a married couple earning $200,000 a year (after deductions), is wealthy, not "middle class."

Rangel's proposal would redress some of the inequity created by six-plus years of Republican tax policy. Further, it's the first salvo in what should be a long campaign to restore tax fairness.

Buffet's comments illustrate a point I made before: work is taxed much more heavily than investment (capital gains). Someone with lots of money to invest does not have to work, and will be rewarded by tax rates less than half those assessed on most wages.

Conservative economists claim low taxes on capital promote high investment, productivity and output, but these claims are disputed by other economists: high tax nations like Sweden have comparable levels per capita to low tax nations like the US.

Politically, slogans for tax cuts are used by politicians to curry favor with high income earners, but most tax cuts end up costing low and middle income people more, transferring tax burdens to sales and property taxes. Proposing tax surcharges for the wealthy risks alienating large campaign donors, it's true. However, to leave the tax system as it is, or to replace it with a flat tax would promote even greater inequality than we have right now, when income and wealth are as skewed as they were in 1929.

As I point out in The Selfish Class, the Senators of fifth century Rome cornered almost all wealth, paid little in taxes, and presided over the bankruptcy of the Empire; they even chose the Empire's fall to paying more taxes. Today they would be "borrow and spend Republicans."

October 30, 2007 Are Religions Authoritarian?

Jesus couldn't have been "pro-family:" family was the most conservative force in Jewish life; he was no conservative because conservatives controlled the Sanhedrin, the temple complex, and were compromised by collaborating with Rome. His assault on the moneychangers in the temple was the purest expression of his radicalism.

Other founders of religions--Buddha, Lao-tse, Mohammed--were radicals, as well, but Mohammed actually carried out his revolution, in secular terms as well as religious ones.

Yet Christian, Hindu, Jewish and Muslim fundamentalists all insist they are conservative and pro-family. Why? Religions that survive were those supported by the state. Christianity changed fundamentally when Constantine legalized it, insuring that it would support him as Emperor. Most of the basics of Christianity derive from Constantine calling the Council of Nicaea (325). Only 66 years later (391), Emperor Theodosius decreed Pagan religions illegal in the Roman Empire!

Mohammed's Islamic state became conservative as it aged, long after his death.

The Saudi's absolute monarchy, one of the last in the world, depends upon one of the most fundamentalist Muslim sects: the Wahhabi. Al Qaeda's appeal is limited precisely because it is reactionary (if also revolutionary) within that fundamentalist sect. One element in the Sunni Sheiks' cooperation with the US in Anbar was their rejection of the draconian Puritanism al Qaeda in Iraq tried to enforce.

Bush's elections depended upon the religious right, but important elements among evangelicals now find his leadership wanting, especially on inequality and war, because he neglects Christ's social Gospel, and Jesus' rejection of violence.

Religion is often 'in' politics: it can be revolutionary, but more often it's supportive of the powers-that-be. Religious institutions (excepting Burmese monasteries right now) tend to support state authority. Revolutionary religion happens when a charismatic leader breaks away from religious institutions, either starting a new religion, or one that is an offshoot of an established one, like George Fox starting Quakerism.

The US left should recognize that religion is a political force; it can be used for good or ill. While leftists might not want religion 'in' politics, they cannot avoid it. It would be better to appeal to the religious 'values' of equality, justice and peace, as happened in the Civil Rights movement, than to exclude religion, or religious leaders, from left-wing politics.

October 29, 2007 Whose $100 Oil?

Bush would hold on, even if Iraqis definitively demanded US withdrawal. The US would continue to build the monstrosity in Baghdad--the new US Embassy--and the permanent military bases strategically scattered about the country--because of the oil.

Iraqis don't really count. A recent poll showed that almost a majority of American soldiers believe shooting at Iraqis is justified, because most of them are "against us." That assumption may be correct: a large majority of Iraqis say it's okay to shoot at Americans.

Further, the "sovereign" Iraqi parliament passed a non-binding resolution this summer calling on the US to start withdrawal. I don't see Bush taking the hint.

Why must we spend almost $200 billion more on the war this year (the supplemental) just to maintain the unsatisfactory status quo?

It's hard for a non-oil man to understand, but how can you ask an oilman--Bush, Cheney-- to give up "all that oil?" They physically control the country. You must understand: Iraq has the third largest proven oil reserves, but Iraq's reserves were purposely under-exploited through an oil company agreement dating back to 1928. It's possible that Iraq actually has the largest reserves of all.

Not that the US really controls Iraq; it controls part of it during daylight hours. Still, just think of it, all that oil. How can we walk away? Oil just topped $92 a barrel!

There is a barrier to withdrawal beyond the inability of the slim Democratic majority in Congress to override Bush's vetoes; even if it finally voted overwhelmingly for withdrawal, there are all those security companies and their professional soldiers--and the immensity of the Defense appropriation. There is enough money for a determined President to keep the mercenaries in Iraq indefinitely and to increase their number if Congress voted definitively to withdraw all regular and reserve military forces.

The President today is like Emperor Theodosius, claiming absolute power. Theodosius punished Thessalonika by unleashing his (mercenary) army on Thessalonians--they had overturned his statues in a protest. Theodosius set Rome on its final downward spiral: autocracy and mercenary armies destroyed Rome; they could destroy the US.

If Bush is followed by another autocrat, he/she might decide unilaterally to keep contract troops in Iraq--because of $100+ oil. Given the power Bush has amassed as President, powers unchallenged by impeachment or prosecution, the next President might be able to do that: unfortunate that Clinton, Obama and Edwards all refused to commit to getting troops out of Iraq by 2013.

October 26, 2007 Shooting Iraqis for Fun and Profit

It turns out that there are more "private contractors" in Iraq, contracting mostly with the US, than the 160,000 American troops. If you add the estimated 180,000 contractors, that's 330,000, a considerably larger force than the US has ever acknowledged. The majority is not in combat, or security, but the proliferation of contract employees has increased the fire-power of those in combat, since they don't have to be on guard duty, or KP.

What happens if Congress, finally, rams through a withdrawal bill? It probably won't happen on W's watch, but if it did, what about the private armies? Would they leave, too, or would the President keep them there? The only way to get them out might be to cut defense appropriations to the bone. Since the "defense" complex is so powerful, that's unlikely, even in the next administration.

The proliferation of private security firms began under Clinton's watch, when Doctor Gore put government on a diet, one of his prescriptions in his "reinventing government" phase. Now, private security firms operate world-wide, "protecting" high officials all over the planet, from Haiti to Afghanistan.

Mercenaries waging war was supposed to have gone out with the French Revolution, but they seem to have re-emerged in the 21st Century. Now Iraq is struggling to gain control of the ones the US brought into their country: up to now they are subject to neither Iraqi nor American law.

We call them "contract employees;" Rome called them "auxiliaries," but mercenaries took over Rome: the "fall" in 476 was just the formal acknowledgement. That control devolved into feudalism throughout Europe, because rival groups continually emerged: war bands were constantly on the prowl. The Dark Ages was the result.

Given the huge amounts of money, equipment and skilled soldiers, the proliferation of firms--Blackwater, MPRI, Steele Foundation, DynCorp, Sallyport, Control Risk Group, Hart Ltd., Triple Canopy and more (see site below)--it's not far-fetched to say that some kind of corporate feudalism could be in our future. Perhaps not castles with moats, but who knows? Haiti's President, Aristide, claims that Steele Foundation employees protecting him withdrew on US orders, permitting his overthrow. Other mercenaries tried to take over Equatorial Guinea.

Corporate feudalism could get murky. They should all be disarmed.

October 25, 2007 Emperor Cheney and Iran

Hold up a minute! Ahmadinejad does go off half-cocked, but he lives a simple, abstemious lifestyle and he doesn't talk like a politician, which is why he won election over a better funded, more mainstream opponent, Hashemi-Rafsanjani. Further, his power as President is severely curtailed, especially compared to the powers Bush claims: foreign policy is the prerogative of The Supreme Leader, according to Iran's constitution. So, he's not a dictator; he was popularly elected, although reform candidates were prevented from running, and he doesn't have the powers claimed by Bush.

Why would the Iranians overthrow their government? Would Americans if US military bases and nuclear plants, weapons labs, testing facilities and stockpiles were bombed? The reaction would be nationalist frenzy! Why wouldn't Iranians react similarly? Besides, the revolution of 1979 was reaction against the oppressive Shah, whom we installed in 1953, and a nationalist reaction against the Shah's US support. It's likely that Iran would erupt in anger, attacking Americans wherever they could: in Iraq, perhaps not Afghanistan: Iran doesn't want the Taliban re-installed there. Iran actually offered to help find bin Laden in 2003; the White House rebuffed the offer.

Iran's population is almost 3 times Iraq's, and the US can't control Iraq. Yet the incompetent crazies who straddle the national helm appear determined to make the case for attacking Iran.

Yes, the parallels to the run-up to the Iraq war stick up like a sore thumb. The differences are:

1) the Iraq disaster precedes it, including the strain on US troops,

2) the difficulties NATO is having in Afghanistan,

And 3) the instability in oil markets (that have reached peak, according to more and more researchers).

The above argue against rational decision-makers electing to go to war. However:

4) the unpredictability of Ahmadinejad,

5) the lame duck status of Bush and Cheney,

6) the frustration of right-wing Apocalypse nuts,

and 7) the minuscule approval ratings for Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, all favor irrational action against Iran by the US, or Israel, or both.

Bush predicts WWIII if we don't "resolve" Iran's nuclear issue, but the IAEA found no evidence Iran was trying to develop nuclear weapons. Cheney just can't accept that his Iraq mis-adventure has left Iran regionally predominant, a result of his disastrous policy.

Romans bankrupted their Empire through war, especially with mercenaries. Are we going to do the same on Cheney's say-so? Spend another trillion to "pacify" Iran?

October 23, 2007 Does Iran Keep Iraq Weak?

Methinks he's projecting!

Judith, a member of Human Shields in Iraq before the war, is convinced it's the US that's keeping Iraq in "a state of weakness," not Iran. Before the US invasion, Iraq was an orderly place, if no democracy. She laments the world she saw then, now lost.

In purely logical terms, her argument makes sense: if Iraq is weak, American oil companies can walk away with the profits from Iraqi oil; American war contractors (a new term?) can continue to profit from the occupation, and Iraq follows American direction in the Middle East. In fact, except for the weak part, which was unstated but implied, that was exactly the model of Iraq that neo-cons promoted before the war: a pro-business, pro-American Iraq in which American oil companies would have full access; a free-enterprise model.

In the one section of Iraq that is relatively stable, the regional Kurdish government is negotiating away oil rights to American companies--and the weak central government objects, but can't do anything about it. Remember, one of the "benchmarks" on which Bush, Republicans and Democrats agree is: the national government should pass the oil law.

One of the reasons it hasn't been passed, is that the draft--with oil company input--would hand over control to oil companies in long term (20-40 year) leases; the companies would determine when they recouped costs, after which they would pay full royalties. No other Middle Eastern country gives oil companies contracts anywhere near that sweet.

Then there are American reconstruction contracts and the privatization of Iraqi business, only possible if a national government is weak, and indecisive, since privatization is highly unpopular. Iraq's government is weak: reeling from civil war and a destructive occupation.

The occupation's destruction is clearly America's responsibility, but the civil war? Weren't Shiites and Sunnis at each other's throats before? No. Saddam, and his Alawite Sunnis dominated; violence was directed against any of Saddam's enemies. But the US-CPA let the (predominantly Sunni) Iraqi soldiers go home without disarming; then it fired them; it promulgated a de-Baathification program, which threw more Sunnis out of work, putting Shiites in their place. Finally the CPA agreed to elections with no safeguards for minority rights. It's almost like US Reconstruction, when ex-slaves and carpetbaggers took control of the defeated South--whites fought back; we let their Iraqi successors keep their weapons.

Did the US set this up, or were Bush's people so stupid that all of this was unintended?

What do you think?

October 19, 2007 Iraq: $s Trump Anti-war Sentiment

Political interests that do not touch us intensely are almost always trumped by interests intensely felt, especially in a pluralistic democracy.

Most people do not have loved ones in Iraq, nor do their jobs depend upon us getting out of Iraq. On the other hand, corporations with contracts in Iraq, or in defense industries for which the war creates significant demand, have intense interests in continuing the war. The most egregious example of this is Blackwater Security, which has grown from a minor company to a corporation with 100's of millions of dollars in contracts from Defense and State, because of the war. If the war were over tomorrow, Blackwater would be hard-pressed to meet its payroll.

The economic interests for maintaining the war are huge: defense contractors and oil companies are the most important (and we're talking about billions, not millions of dollars), but there is also, don't forget, large portions of the military at the command level: high-level officers in the Army, especially, have seen promotions and increased powers to command because of the war. Send the troops home and they'll end up commanding training facilities and likely won't see easy promotions. There were also cohorts of young people in depressed regions who saw the war as an opportunity, but that may be changing with continued deployments.

Major economic interests are not above using millions of dollars (a small fraction of their war-gains) to combat popular disillusion with the war, and in using their clout with Congress and the media.

What does the anti-war movement have to combat these formidable resources? Since Nixon discontinued the draft, the only people directly affected by the war are volunteers and their families: if there were a draft, the 65% opposition to the war would have major significance, but there is no draft. Can demonstrations, even of 100's of thousands, have similar effect?

Until the anti-war movement can demonstrate to the General Electrics and Microsofts that it is in their economic interest to oppose the war, the economic interests arrayed in its favor will continue to hold sway where it counts: in Congress and the White House. If antiwar activists want to get anywhere, they have to make a convincing case that the war is bad for business.

In the late Roman Empire war, military pre-eminence, was definitely bad for business, but the Senators didn't see that until it was too late: their immense holdings were lost to the Germanic mercenaries turned conquerors, and to the chaos they caused.

October 18, 2007 Money Runs ("Reform") Politics

In order to support the civil rights of black teenagers in Jena, I'm asked to give money; in order to stop gold mining companies from polluting the streams going into Yellowstone Park, I'm asked to donate. Oh, I can also click and email and call, but all these organizations need money. I can do the same for almost any environmental organization, any civil liberties organization, any of the many groups now springing up to oppose electronic voting machines in NY, the only state that still does not have them.

Money-raising for presidential campaigns and political candidates is, so far, the only game in town--except for polls. According to the polls, Hillary is way ahead of Barack Obama, although he actually raised more money ($76m vs 74.7m) and has only slightly less on hand. Since his total for the quarter was slightly below hers, he raised almost another million in 24 hours--just to "send a message."

And way back when, the Supreme Court, even before it was taken over by conservatives, ruled that money spent for political purposes is "free speech" and must be curtailed only very carefully. Obviously, it hasn't been curtailed at all, despite McCain-Feingold.

So, do we live in a democracy, where every vote counts, where "we, the people" rule? Or do we live in a plutocracy, where money counts most? If I were a billionaire, I could buy my office, simply by spending a bit less than my current income. Bloomberg did this, Corzine, too, to name a Republican and a Democrat respectively. In fact, our federal, state and local offices are bursting with wealthy men and women who use their huge private resources to run for office. One of the thrusts of the DLC was to recruit multi-millionaires and billionaires to run, so the party wouldn't have to raise as much money.

For the rest of us, it's $25 here, and $50 there.

In Rome, in 401, the procurator's Senatorial father had to lay out about $1 million to "celebrate" his son's "appointment." We don't know how much he paid for the position, but the price was considerable. Is that where we're heading?

October 16, 2007 Lying to Win

My friend was leader of opposition to that blinking light (the only light in the town); he organized petitions, demonstrations and meetings with the DOT; his opponent didn't oppose it. Moreover, my friend has been a manic legislator; even getting some resolutions passed unanimously, despite the fact that his party is the legislative minority; a good many of his initiatives have been appropriated by the majority.

In other words, the Grand Dame writes exactly the opposite of what actually happened in the last four years.

At another level, the Republican County Executive vetoes the minority's initiative to lower taxes, demands that the majority raise them instead, and then runs on--you guessed it--cutting taxes.

At the state level, the new governor tries to determine if the majority leader of the Senate, (Republican), is misusing state planes for profit, or for party activity (both illegal). Many say he was; he was also under FBI investigation. The Republican Senate turned the investigation against the Democratic governor, investigating him in turn, because he used the State Police to do his probe. They've succeeded in making the governor's inquiry into a scandal of executive overreaching.

The President--what hasn't Bush presented as the opposite of reality? WMD's, torture (he said again: the US doesn't do torture), Katrina, warrantless wiretapping, child health care (they can "go to the emergency room," he opined) and his continual spin on the Iraq disaster? Black is white.

When the USSR was sliding fast, Soviet citizens believed that whatever the (government censored) news told them, the opposite was probably true. This is beginning to happen here, but not just with Republicans.

In Rome's fifth century Empire, only the imperial version of events was permitted, but the reality was far different. As the Empire disintegrated, as German war bands took over, Roman Senators--the equivalent of the American elite--continued to believe their own propaganda: nothing had changed--until it was too late.

Maybe there is something infectious about lying. In the conclusion to his study of the Ik, Anthropologist Colin Turnbull warned that they should be dispersed, because their culture of ruthless amorality, born of decades-long starvation, could infect their neighbors. Thirty five years later Africa is being despoiled by kleptocratic governments, guerrillas and foreign corporations.

When even a Grand Dame in a small town in rural New York straight-facedly presents white as black for political advantage, can we be far behind? Postscript: My friend won by a hair, the County Exec also won, so lying didn't quite win in one case and did in the other.

October 11, 2007 Eavesdropping Must be Legal?

Congress gave him the powers for six months, powers the government had been wielding illegally since 2001. The eavesdropping had been carried on with the willing cooperation of the telecom companies, so if it was illegal, then they are open to suits for violating peoples' civil liberties, and of committing a crime, if a new government decides to prosecute.

Now the Dems are proposing a "compromise," the RESTORE Act. Although the government would have a few checks on their eavesdropping powers in the Dem's bill--warrants could be broadly "bundled," accounts required occasionally--but the NSA could do what it had been doing (which was ruled illegal, remember). What is really under debate is: do the telecoms get a "get out of jail free" card?

This is not about political courage. The Democrats are about as craven as mice shivering in front of a cruelly playful cat when it comes to anything to do with "terrorism." They have caved to the Administration's tactic: labeling anyone against them as "soft on terror." So, they have given most of what Bush demanded, after those brave speeches about protecting the rights of American citizens: Onward and upward to the State of Big Brother--only, account to Congress now and then.

So, why the question about the telecoms' liability? If the Democrats believe that eavesdropping is justified by the terror threat, then the telecoms were only doing their patriotic duty; the administration's plea for retroactive immunity makes sense. If the Dems don't think the eavesdropping is justified, or don't know why it is (the administration won't really tell them) then why are they giving Bush all the powers he demands, but not amnesty for the telecoms?

Perhaps it is simply this: the Democrats don't want to give Bush everything he wants, but telecom liability is the only part that couldn't be used against them as being "soft on terror." It looks like it's their token for courage. It's pretty paltry.

Courage is also in short supply when none of the three "leading contenders" will commit to getting all American troops out of Iraq by 2013!

Spineless and Democrat should not be an oxymoron: unfortunately it is. Democrats are about as effective as the Roman Senators who ineffectually defended Paganism against the Christian Emperor Theodosius "The Great." He decreed Paganism illegal; their sons became Bishops.

October 9, 2007 Send"Bobby" Eagan to Iran!

Most people know that Jimmy Carter, ex-President, has been active internationally. On NPR he explained that he'd known the head of the Sudan for 19 years, which made credible his personal appeal for a comprehensive peace agreement between the Sudan and its south. Carter's personal diplomacy has also promoted fair elections in many countries.

Bob Egan is someone few have heard of, however, until a New Yorker article (Oct. 8, 2007). He's a restaurateur in New Jersey who has had an ongoing relationship with North Korea, and before that with Vietnam. In both cases, his initial involvement was a determination to find POW-MIA's in those two countries. In neither country has he succeeded in finding any, but the result of his investigations has been to establish personal relations with ambassadors and ministers first in Vietnam, and then, once relations were normalized there, with officials in North Korea. He is not an area specialist and does not speak the language: he is an average (if extraordinary) American. He explained simply that somebody has to talk with the North Koreans.

Carter was asked if he were afraid that he might be "used" by the Sudanese President; his response: if his interventions meant that more Sudanese lived better lives and therefore the government was more popular, he was all for being "used." Egan, facing a similar question, said that if his friendship with North Korean officials helped their country emerge from isolation, then being "used" was exactly the point.

What both demonstrated was that a lack of the testosterone-fueled need to control epitomized by Bush "diplomacy" was precisely what worked. In neither North Korea nor the Sudan have their interventions threatened the repressive governments, but both have probably saved lives and made lives better. Bush cannot say the same for his invasion into Iraq, nor for his heavy-handed hostility against Iran.

In fact, what we need is a President Carter, or a Bobby Egan to smooth our relations with Iran, to give them a personal face, help Iran away from its macho stance of defiance, by giving Iranian leaders a chance to feel they are heard.

To threaten Iran is counter-productive--as it was with North Korea. In both cases, threats push them to develop nuclear weapons; now North Korea, given some legitimacy by the Group of Four, has actually agreed to negotiate a peace treaty with the South and to dismantle its nuclear program.

Could the same thing happen with Iran?

October 4, 2007 Torture Under Legal Oversight

Torture is torture.

The mindset of CIA and/or "civilian" operatives engaged in this activity gives me the chills. Did they really think they could force information from detainees that they couldn't have extracted in other ways? Whatever happened to the "good cop, bad cop" routine, to the psychological seduction of prisoners, to the bonding that prisoners can experience with their captors if treated humanely?

It was Lenin who opined that the end justifies the means, not George Washington.

What is even more difficult to comprehend is the mindset of the "lawyers" who advised that, yes, they could use these techniques. If I were a lawyer in the ABA, I would start a movement to disbar John Yoo (author of the torture memo), Alberto Gonzales (who reinstated it in the DOJ) and any other lawyers who were responsible for writing or implementing it.

The torturers themselves should be prosecuted by the courts: no "justification" justifies torture.

In the Roman Empire, torture was approved of at the highest levels, and not just for extracting information, but for punishment, as well. Of course we don't have TV shows (yet) where people are tortured onscreen; we don't have executions in amphitheaters (yet), where the convicted are torn apart by wild beasts. So far we seem more inclined to hide our torture, but maybe we shouldn't.

Since we seem to be going the way of the late Roman Empire, maybe we should have "entertaining executions." Maybe that would be the way to "deter" terrorists. Should I propose this to Giuliani and Romney? They seem so gung-ho for Guantànamo and gittin' them terrorists.

Given the parlous state of our electoral system, one or the other might still be "elected" President, especially if the Democrats nominate someone like Hillary, who says sweet nothings instead of substance.

And just for balance, we shouldn't make health insurance possible for children of poor families: that would be socialism, and besides, as GW stated, "they can go to the emergency room." We need to spend more money on torture--and on destroying other countries.